In the comment sections below, find the category for which each of your topics belong. Click the reply button and post your argument(s) there. For this part of the assignment, you will follow the format we discussed in class (and what you have been given in handouts). Be sure to include your sources (cited in APA) either as footnotes or with each scientific/factual claim. Remember, you need to complete 3 arguments.
Your arguments need to be posted by October 24, 2013.
Plants
ReplyDeleteI believe that using GMO crops to cure world hunger is an ethical use of GMOs. Though still fairly new to the world of agricultural production, GMO’s have proven to be efficient and worthy of further research. Their benefits seem to be strong enough to meet the needs of the less developed countries of the world.
Delete-The adaptability in different type of soil and conditions such as droughts, today not done
with success but with potential achievements soon, or massive and frequent rains, achieved by the methods of genetic modification (Nielson).
-Considering the food access problem due to the price and low productivity with weak mechanization that meet developing countries, a decrease of cost of production will lower price and enable a greater access to food for the population. It's due to higher production which provoke more food on the market and lower price (Nielsen).
-GMOs will not pollute as much the soil and water than a regular seeds exploitation. This will enable a gain for farmers which will use their soil longer time and will lost less harvest (Nielson).
-Some of the most common GMO’s include corn, soybeans, and canola. all of which have benefits like higher net yield of product and less pesticide use on crops (Ayres).
-Work is being done on developing common, easy to grow crops, with more nutritional value. Crops such as “Golden Rice” is an example of one that has been developed with more beta-carotene. These new productions will help lower income countries get the nutrition they need from their limited food sources (2007).
GMO’s are a highly beneficial and with successes like Norman Bourlag’s use of genetically modified wheat in southern African countries there is no reason to prevent the selling of GMO crops to less developed countries to help promote their further growth and development. With the help of GMO’s these low income countries can begin to focus their energies elsewhere besides agriculture and hopefully join the more developed world of industry and technology.
Nielsen, T., Colin, Borie, C., Hello, H., (2008). genetically modified organisms and world hunger., Retrieved from: http://diggy.ruc.dk/bitstream/1800/3808/1/GMOs%20project%20Hunger.pdf
Ayres, L., Doherty, E., Roberts, T., Cardona, S. (2011) the benefits and risks of genetically modified organisms for food. Retrieved from: http://faculty.nwacc.edu/EAST_original/Fall%202011/Principles%20of%20Biology/Curtis/Genetically%20Modified%20Food/Genetically%20modified%20foods%20WORD.pdf
(2007) current knowledge on the impacts of genetically modified organisms on biodiversity and human health. The World Conservation Union (IUCN). Retrieved from http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ip_gmo_09_2007_1_.pdf
I believe the use of genetically modified crops to stop of world hunger is ethical. Although there are pros and cons to GMO’s, I believe the pros outweigh the cons in the long run.
Delete-Insect damage, the majority of which occurs in the developing world, is responsible for around fifteen percent of the world’s pre-harvest food losses. GMO’s allow plants to be sprayed with insecticides without having the negative effects (Herrera-Estrella).
-GMO’s can be modified to have better health benefits than original forms of the food. Many people in third world countries lack Vitamin A, which causes them to go blind; therefore, GMOs with improved Vitamin A levels would satisfy their hunger while also improving their health (Robbins).
-Genetically modified foods have higher yields than the natural crop, thus allowing more food per area of farming land (Herrera-Estrella).
-Modified crops have the potential to be grown in harsher climates where the food is needed. If more research is done and scientists find a successful method, then modified crops can be grown in third world countries where they originally could not survive (Herrera-Estrella).
-GMOs are the same prices as unmodified strands of crops because the extra money spent on the crop would be used for crop issues, such as disease, that GMOs could practically eliminate. Therefore, there is very little to no price difference in the long run (Herrera-Estrella).
GMO’s clearly possess the ability to stop or decrease the issues with third world hunger. If modified crops can potentially feed people in starvation, then it only makes sense to put these uses into action.
Robbins, John. (2011). can gmos help end world hunger? Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/gmo-food_b_914968.html
Herrera-Estrella, Luis; Alvarez-Morales, Ariel. (2001). genetically modified crops: hope for developing countries? Retrieved from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1083872/
I believe using technology to enable plants to produce pure hydrogen is an ethical use of genetically modified plants. Although it is a fairly new method of obtaining hydrogen, the research done on the process only shows great achievements in science.
Delete-Hydrogen fuel production involving plants reduces cost of producing hydrogen compared to hydrogen production from biomass (Barlow).
-This method uses renewable natural resources; as a result, it has an abundant amount of resources. Most of the types of energy we currently use are nonrenewable; therefore, this could solve our energy problem (Barlow).
-This method of hydrogen production releases practically no greenhouse gases, thus allowing it to be a very clean source of energy compared to fossil fuels (Barlow).
-If this method of hydrogen extraction is used in more labs, then hydrogen fuel could realistically become a new energy source within the next three years. This would result in fuel where the only byproduct is water (Barker).
-The net energy gain is over one hundred percent; other methods of obtaining energy, such as nuclear plants, have a very low net energy yield. Hydrogen would become one of the leaders of net energy gains in the energy industry (Barlow).
Hydrogen is going to be one of the leaders in our future fuel industry. If humans have found a way to produce pure hydrogen with these results, then we should implement this method immediately.
Barlow, Zeke. (2013). Breakthrough in hydrogen fuel production could revolutionize alternative energy market. Retrieved from:
http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2013/04/040413-cals-hydrogen.html
Barker, Ross. (2013). water splitting: plants provide blueprint for cheap hydrogen production. Retrieved from:
http://phys.org/news/2013-04-blueprint-cheap-hydrogen-production.html
GMOs help increase crop production and can decrease the demand for added resources.
Delete• Advancements have allowed crops to be pest and herbicide resistant. (source 1)
• Crops have added nutrition. (source 1)
• Lower cost of food. (source 1)
• GMOs can help decrease the number of people who go hungry in the world. (source 1)
• GMOs increase crop productivity. (source 2)
GMOs can help solve problems in the world as long as they are used responsibly.
Ethics and GMOs. Retrieved from www.iastate.edu/342EthicsandGMOs.htm
Source 1
(March 2003) Weighting GMO Arguments. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo7.htm
Source 2
Genetically Modified Organisms
Delete•GMO crops could be a viable solution to world hunger and malnutrition.
1.Genetically modified foods can put more nutrients in to food. This will help add nutrition to the diets of the hungry.
(2012). Genetically engineered food. The new york times. Retrieved from http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/nutrition/genetically-engineered-foods/overview.html
2.More food is able to be made at a quicker ate and can stay fresh for longer periods of time if they are a GMO. With a quick turn rate of food, the hungry can be fed steadily without fear of running out or it going bad.
(Same citation as above)
3.By 2009, the United Nations believed that there would be 100 million people without a steady food supply.
(2009). Can biotech food cure world hunger?. The new york times; the opinion pages. Retrieved from http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/can-biotech-food-cure-world-hunger/?_r=0
4.Climate change has made adoption of GMOs necessary. This is imperative in places like Africa where there are high temperatures almost year-round.
Paul Collier. (2009). Can biotech food cure world hunger?. The new york times; the opinion pages. Retrieved from http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/can-biotech-food-cure-world-hunger/?_r=0
5.GMOs are a biological solution, rather than a chemical solution. Rather than using pesticides that could get into food supply, the genetics of the crop are being changed.
Paul Collier. (2009). Can biotech food cure world hunger?. The new york times; the opinion pages. Retrieved from http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/can-biotech-food-cure-world-hunger/?_r=0
Because of the above reasons, genetically modified organisms in crop production should be used in order to ensure that there is more food that will stay fresh for long periods of time, add nutrition, and can withstand harsh climates. This means that there will be more food available for the hungry. GMOs could be a great solution to world hunger.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGMO crops have some great benefits to not only farmers, but to other people as well. I see no reason why we should not used GMO crops to essentially “end world hunger”. These crops have proven that the benefits gained from its use are worthwhile and outshine some of the negative effects.
Delete• Genetically modifying crops can help create a variety of crops that are resistant to disease and pests and also decreases the need for pesticides (Bocco, 2013).
• In order to help certain areas/parts of the world with shorter growing seasons, we can change crops in order to allow them to grow at faster speeds (Bocco, 2013).
• We can introduce new genes into crops to give them higher levels of tolerance with issues such as droughts, salt being prevalent in the soil, and when the temperature is low (Bocco, 2013).
• Genetically modifying crops to contain certain nutrients can be important in countries that are developing in which the people lack these essential nutrients from their diet (Nuffield Council on Bioethics).
• GMO crops allow us to introduce genes into them that can yield medicines and vaccines (Nuffield Council on Bioethics).
This method will definitely take time and persistence, but I believe that the payoff in the end will be worth it. The way I see it, many people (especially in Africa and Asia) are poor and undernourished. They already don’t have enough food sources available, which is why they suffer from starvation and are malnourished. Introducing these kinds of crops into their communities could have some great benefits in hopes to create more food sources for the people around the world.
Bocco, Diana. (2013, October 24). What are the pros and cons of genetically engineering food? Retrieved from http://www.wisegeek.org/what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-genetically-engineered-food.htm
The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Retrieved from http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/sites/default/files/GM%20Crops%20short%20version%20FINAL.pdf
Topic: Using GM (genetically modified) crops
DeletePremise: I believe that using GM crops is an effective measure for providing food in developing nations and diminishing world hunger.
Factual Claims:
1.) In more than 30% of all arable land, primarily in developing countries, aluminium can be present in the soil in a form that limits plant growth. A new approach with engineering genetically modified foods consists of developing new varieties of plants that are more tolerant to aluminium.(1)
2.) Biotechnology also benefits the environment. Genetically modified crops provide a 70 percent reduction in herbicide runoff and an 85 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.(2)
3.) Without biotechnology, global prices would be nearly 10 percent higher for soybeans and 6 percent higher for corn.(2)
4.) One study on the prospects for genetically modified golden rice in India found that the burden of vitamin A deficiency could be reduced by 60 percent, saving 1.4 million healthy life years.(3)
5.) The use of Bt (genetically modified) cotton has led to insecticide reductions of 60 percent in China and 40 percent in India on cotton.(3)
Conclusion: Therefore, the use of GM crops is an effective measure for providing food in developing nations and diminishing world hunger.
Sources:
(1) GreenFacts Scientific Board. (2013). Agriculture on acid soils: improving aluminium tolerance in cereals. Retrieved from http://www.greenfacts.org/en/gmo/3-genetically-engineered-food/ 2-genetic-engineering.htm#6p2
(2) CommonGround. (2013). GMO Foods. Retrieved from http://findourcommonground.com/food-facts/gmo-foods/
(3) Lynas, Mark. (2013). The Truth About Genetically Modified Food: Debunking the GMO Conspiracy Theory. The Breakthrough Institute. Retrieved from http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/ conservation-and-development/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/
GMOs for World Hunger
Delete1. Genetically engineering wheat and other crops, yielded up to 29% more crop (1)
2. Modified plants that can control viral and fungal diseases (1)
3. Much of the GM production currently grown worldwide is destined for animal feed anyways. (2)
4. Farmers growing Genetically Modified rice reduced pesticide use by 80% and saw a fall in pesticide-related health problems being reported (2)
5. Less chemical run off would trickle into the steams because of the decreased use of pesticides with GMOs.
1. Borlaug , N. E. (n.d.). Ending World Hunger. The Promise of Biotechnology and the Threat of Antiscience Zealotry. Retrieved October 22, 2013, from http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/124/2/487
2. IUNC (2007). Current Knowledge of the Impacts of GEnetically Modifited Organisms on Biofiversity and Human Health. Retrieved October 22, 2013, from http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ip_gmo_09_2007_1_.pdf
Using GMO’s to cure world hunger would be very risky due to lack of research, and it would not be a permanent solution for third world countries.
Delete-Transgenic crops pose serious environmental risks, continuously underplayed by the biotechnology industry. (Altieri & Rosset)
- Recent evidence shows that there are potential risks of eating such foods as the new proteins produced in such foods could: (1) act themselves as allergens or toxins; (2) alter the metabolism of the food producing plant or animal, causing it to produce new allergens or toxins; or (3) reduce its nutritional quality or value (Lappe & Bailey).
-Enough food is available to provide 4.3 pounds for every person everyday: 2.5 pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of meat, milk and eggs and another of fruits and vegetables. The real causes of hunger are poverty, inequality and lack of access to food and land. Too many people are too poor to buy the food that is available (but often poorly distributed) or lack the land and resources to grow it themselves (Lappe, Collins & Rosset).
-Most innovations in agricultural biotechnology have been profit-driven rather than need-driven. The real thrust of the genetic engineering industry is not to make third world agriculture more productive, but rather to generate profits (Busch).
-Genetically manipulate plants may contain carcinogenic agents, and thus contribute to the cancer rates of the developing countries (Morrey & Sherlock).
GMO’s are not and are not meant to be the answer to world hunger. There is plenty of food in the world for everyone, but there is a lack in some people’s chances on receiving that food.
Altier & Rosset. "AgBioForum 2(3&4): Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology will not Help the Developing World." AgBioForum 2(3&4): Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology will not Help the Developing World. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. <http://agbioforum.org/v2n34/v2n34a03-altieri.htm>.
Morrey & Sherlock. "Google Books." Google Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. <http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mlVh3ysN4ZwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA175&dq=problems+with+using+gmos+for+world+hunger&ots=3N6HrhCRdQ&sig=TpAwJoJgE0AYsV0x9i09zE8LNhM#v=onepage&q&f=false>.
Premise: GM crops help in managing the growing population that the world has to feed.
Delete• Numbers from an Iowa State University study show that without the biotechnology that creates GM crops, soybeans would be 10% more expensive and corn would be 6% more expensive worldwide. (1)
• Farmers in developing countries are gaining easier access to these crops meaning they can grow more food per acre. (1)
• The fact that the GM crops hold their nutrients better make it better for those who are planting it in developing countries. (2)
• Farmers in developing countries will gain a lot from GM crops because the environmental impact is not as great as traditional crops. This means they can use their land to plant longer, gaining more crops over the years. (2)
• GM crops can also be grown in more places, making it easier for developing country farmers to grow in their soil. (1)
Conclusion: GM crops will help farmers in developing countries grow more crops in more places while retaining more nutrients. Over all, GM crops will help feed the many more mouths our world is seeing.
Sources:
(1) CommonGround. (2013). GMO Foods. Retrieved from http://findourcommonground.com/food-facts/gmo-foods/
(2) Council on Foreign Affairs. (2002). Genetically modified foods can feed the world’s hungry. Retrieved from http://www.cfr.org/biotechnology/genetically-modified-foods-can-feed-worlds-hungry/p4629
Topic: Using GMOs to enhance the qualities of the plant in order to cure world hunger.
DeletePremise: One option for farmers to provide the opportunity to produce enough food in order to sufficiently cure world hunger would be to use genetically modified organisms within their crops.
Scientific or Factual Claims:
a. By using genetically modified organisms in food, farmers have the ability to produce crops that consist of a longer shelf life than non-genetically modified produce. Due to the fact that these crops will not ripen as quickly, shippers are allowed the opportunity to provide food for human beings that are struggling to produce enough food in their own area (1).
b. With the help using genetically modified organisms, crops now have the ability to be produced more inexpensively (3).
c. By using genetically modified organisms, Ugandan farmers would be able to prevent bacterial wilt disease in their bananas. As a result, the Ugandans would consist of the opportunity to feed more hungry bellies (2).
d. GMOs can assist in producing more animal feed for the animals as well by producing a much more durable crop with high yield (3).
e. GMOs can create a larger amount of more nutritionally valuable foods that can consist of a better texture and flavor (1).
Conclusion: In all, using genetically modified organisms in crops represents a good way to head towards a time where world hunger is nonexistent.
Sources:
1. (2005). Benefits of GM food. Genetically modified foods. Retrieved from http://classes.soe.ucsc.edu/cmpe080e/Spring05/projects/gmo/benefits.htm.
2. Doucleff, M., (2013). Will GMOs help protect Uganda families against world hunger? Npr. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/0 6/17/192789454/will-gmos-help-protect-ugandan-families-against-hunger.
3. Diehl, P., (2013). Can genetically modified food feed the world? About.com: biotech/biomedical. Retrieved from http://biotech.about.co m/od/investinginbiotech/a/Can-Genetically-Modified-Food-Feed-The-World.htm.
Animals
ReplyDeleteAltering Animal Genes to use for human organs
DeleteI believe that altering animal genes to use for human organs is not an ethical method for aiding humans. This process known as xenotransplantation can be extremely harmful and it’s disadvantages far outweigh its advantages.
-For xenotransplantations, the horizontal transmission of viral pathogens raises concerns of introducing new infections into the human population. This is known as cross species disease and with organ transplantation between species is increased in likelihood (Rakatansky).
-Multitudes of extremely high cost research will need to be done, as the method of xenotransplantation has yet to actually work in a human (Rakatansky).
-Ethically speaking and animal can not be a donor for the sole fact that it cannot give consent and will therefore be dying against its will (Asami).
-The galactosyltransferase, which produces alpha-galactose antigen and is a sugar molecule seen on the surface of pigs’ cells, causes human bodies to produce natural antibodies against the antigen. This causes a hyperacute reaction and will most certainly lead to an unsuccessful organ transplant every time (Asami).
-The doubt that goes along with xenotransplantation are extremely great. Virtually nothing is known about the effects of xenotransplantation upon perceptions of identity. The consequences of xenotransplantation may include serious psychological consequences for the recipients of another animals organs(Asami).
The consequences associated with xenotransplantation are too great not only for ethical reasons but also for the survival of the human race. The risk of infections is extreme and another virus like AIDS, which kills millions of people every year, is too great to compromise. The ethicality to raising genetically modified organisms for the butchering and then harvesting of their organs is overstepping a moral boundary between humans and other animals. Xenotransplantation is simply not a viable or ethical method of saving lives.
Rakatansky, H. (2000) the ethical implications of xenotransplantation. Report of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. Resolution 505. Retrieved from: http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/code-medical-ethics/2169a.pdf
Asami, S. (2006) from pigs to humans: xenotransplantation and a new challenge to medical ethics. Journal of Philosophy and Ethics in Health Care and Medicine, No.1, pp.11-26. Retrieved from: http://pe-med.umin.ac.jp/kokusaishi/no_1/asami.pdf
The general use of antibiotics on livestock is unethical from several different perspectives.
Deletea. Generally administered antibiotics are used to allow conditions of animals to be much worse - chickens practically stacked on top of each other, cows sitting in their own manure, et cetera (Douglas, 2012).
b. Antibiotics allow for more intensive agriculture, which is less sustainable in terms of the world ecological system and food supply (Douglas, 2012).
c. Large scale use of antibiotics leads to the development of dangerous superstrains of many viruses, affecting animals and humans. (Douglas, 2012).
d. The same applies to bacteria, meaning that antibiotics can cause meat to be unsafe for human consumption and can spread food-borne illnesses ("Ethical eating", 2011).
e. Antibiotics decrease in efficacy the more they are used, and meat from antibiotic-treated animals contains antibiotics, meaning people consume more than intended (Schiffman, 2013).
General use of antibiotics on animal livestock is unethical in that it causes the development of dangerous superstrains for a singular gain in intensity / profit, and in that it causes discomfort and danger to animals and decreases their welfare.
Douglas, T. (2012, April 18). Animal antibiotics. Practical Ethics. Retrieved October 23, 2013, from http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/04/animal-antibiotics/
Ethical eating: antibiotic resistance and agriculture. (2011, May 29). Sustainable Cooking for One. Retrieved October 23, 2013, from http://groundcherry.wordpress.com/2011/05/29/ethical-eating-antibiotic-resistance-and-agriculture/
Schiffman, R. (2013, September 18). Mad cow, bird flu, pink slime? The bigger threat is antibiotics in our meat. the Guardian. Retrieved October 23, 2013, from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/18/antibiotics-meat-growing-threat
Cloning pigs to grow human organs sounds good but in reality it’s messing up Mother Nature and has unforeseen consequences.
Delete• Pig organs have sugar molecules on them which cause rejection in humans. (source 1)
• Scientist are genetically modifying the pigs so the organs lack the sugar molecule coating. (source 1)
• Xenotransplantation brings the possibility of viruses going from one species to the other. (source 1)
• Is there the possibility to breed “germ free” animals? (source 2)
• Cost outlook into xenotransplantation is higher and risker than human to human transplants. (source 2)
If xenotransplantation is carried out what is going to stop scientist from trying other unethical acts?
Trived, B (January 3, 2002) Cloned Pigs Modified for Use in Human Transplants. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0103_020103TVclonedpig.html
Source 1
What’s Wrong With Xeno. Retrieved from www.crt-online.org/wrong.html
Source 2
Engineering Pigs to Have Human Organs for Human Use
DeleteArgument: Using pigs to grow human organs is unethical and deprives the pigs of a normal, healthy life.
1. Scientists have already begun to use pigs as a source for humans’ transplant organs, but this process is entirely different. With the use of “chimeric embryos”, researches have found a way to actually grow human organs inside a pig’s body. Such as drastic concept completely disrupts the lives of ordinary, innocent pigs.
2. Taking organs from a pig to use in a human is one side of transgenic research, but using pigs as a shell in which to grow human organs completely disrupts their natural life and health.
3. At such an early stage in the chimeric embryo study, scientists have no way of knowing what horrific side effects could stem from such a blatantly unnatural technique. Humans who are given organs that were ‘grown’ in an entirely different species of animal could face severe health issues in the future.
4. Dr. Hiromitsu Nakauchi has been attempting to continue his research of chimera genetics, but various Japanese restrictions have been attempting to curb his pursuit of the subject. As a result of this, Nakauchi is considering carrying out his research in the United States. Japan has recognized that there are issues centered around chimera genetics and perhaps it is time that other nations do as well.
5. Using pigs to grow human organs can have negative implications for both the donor and the receiver. Developing human organs inside a pig’s stomach is a far greater imposition on the pig’s overall quality of life than simply raising them for slaughter. Although many farms do not treat pigs as well as they should, that is an issue that must be addressed and fixed – similarly to the research of chimeric embryos. Growing and harvesting organs from another species inside a pig is simply taking science too far.
Conclusion: Using pigs as a host in which human organs can grow is unethical and scientists should not pursue such a technique.
Sources:
Gayomali, Chris (26 June 2013). Human Organs, Grown In Pigs. Retrieved from: http://theweek.com/article/index/246171/human-organs-grown-in-pigs.
(19 June 2013). Japan to Relax Ban on Chimeric Embryo Experiments. Retrieved from: http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2013/06/japan-relax-ban-chimeric-embryo-experiments.
Production of animals that can hold human organs
DeleteThe production of animals for the sole purpose of using them to transfer organs to humans, also known as xenotransplantation, is unethical. It can harm both the patient and the animal.
1.There are problems already when trying to transfer human organs to another human. Bodies often reject the new organs. Now that surgeons are trying to add another factor, the organ is coming from an animal. There are even more risks of the body rejecting the organ and getting even sicker than it were before.
(11 June 2001).Animal organ transplants debated by doctors. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/06/0606_wireorgans.html.
2.The main animal organs will be coming from are pigs. There is a chance that viruses left in the pig organ that is in their genetics can transfer to the already sick human. (Same as above).
3.The pigs must be raised in a germ free area which is extremely costly. Then, the organ must be tested for bacteria and then the transplant conducted. It is extremely costly and many will not be able to afford the surgery.
Xenotransplantation. Retrieved from http://highschoolbioethics.med.nyu.edu/briefs/xenotransplantation
4.Because the pig must be raised in germ free conditions, they are living unnaturally. This would not be comfortable to live. A human would not enjoy it, and neither would an animal. Advantages and Disadvantages. Retrieved from http://www.abpischools.org.uk/res/coresourceimport/resources/poster-series/geneng/advndis.cfm.
5. Humans are able to say they want to be an organ donor when they get their license, therefore giving consent. The pigs have no option but to die without a choice.
(Same as above).
Using pigs and other primates organ's as a transplant option to humans is unethical. There are greater risks to the receiver, higher costs, and unnatural consequences for the animal donor.
I believe that the use of xenotransplantation, or transplanting cells/organs from other animals into ourselves, can be ethical as long as the welfare of animals is considered during the process. There is a plethora of scientific facts that support this practice:
Delete- We have been using this technique for some years now. For example, some devices derived from animals, such as pig heart valves, have been used to treat humans for many years. These devices, although derived from animal material, are inert and sterilised, unlike xenotransplants which are living tissues.
- By studying multiple religions, the NHMRC has concluded that this transplantation process is not controversial in most religious contexts.
- Ongoing research by the NHMRC has also shown that this procedure is safe for both the animal and human, with the only risks lying in the human surgery. (X.W. Party, 2003)
- The animal’s life is conserved in the process: either a non-vital organ is transplanted (e.g. a kidney), or a few cells are transferred and incubated. (X.W. Party, 2003)
- Xenotransplantation has the possibility of solving the problem of organ-donor supply due to the increased number of usable organs. (Cooper, Keogh, 2001)
- The field of xenotransplantation is developing rapidly. There is a lot of ongoing experiments, most of which have been successful, at least in the short term. It should be our responsibility to control and develop this technology safely. (X.W. Party, 2003)
In conclusion, xenotransplantation should be developed because it can save lives by providing cells, tissue, and organs to human patients, while humanely treating the animals that can provide it. (X.W. Party. 2003)
Works Cited:
Party, Xenotransplantation Working (2003). Animal-to-Human Transplantation Research: How Should Australian Proceed. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/health_ethics/human/issues/animal_human_transplantation_guide_community_e54.pdf
Cooper, D. K., & Keogh, A. M. (2001). The potential role of xenotransplantation in treating endstage cardiac disease: a summary of the report of the Xenotransplantation Advisory Committee of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Current Opinion in Cardiology, 16(2), 105-109.
http://www.ishlt.org/pdf/pdf_xeno_guidelines.pdf
Genetically altering/engineering animals can have many benefits. Some of the genes being altered are keeping the animals healthier and can fight against/be resistant to disease. I think the benefits from this process are grand compared to the cons.
Delete• Farm animals are being created that have genes favorable for being resistant to certain diseases (Perzigian, 2003).
• Genetically altering farm animals can help them grow faster so that we can use their benefits sooner (Perzigian, 2003).
• Using genetic altering technology can help for animals such as cattle, sheep, and goats to create complicated human proteins in the milk they produce which can be an importance use when making therapeutic drugs (Perzigian, 2003).
• Animals that are genetically engineered can produce replacement proteins, vaccines, drugs, and tissues to help treat some human diseases (Gottlieb, 2011).
• Genetically engineered animals use less resources and do not produce a large amount of waste, which then helps the earth by improving environmental conditions/health (Gottlieb, 2011).
All of these benefits created by genetically engineering animals seem to not harm the animals and also help out with several human needs. These positive benefits created from this process are useful for humans and also helps the animals themselves by having genes favorable to fight off disease.
Gottlieb, Scott. (2011, July 28). Genetically engineered animals and public health. Retrieved from http://www.bio.org/articles/genetically-engineered-animals-and-public-health
Perzigian, Andrew B. (2003). Genetic engineering and animals: a short summary of the legal terrain and ethical implications. Retrieved from http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovusgeneticengineering.htm
Topic: Animal to human organ transplants and animal embryological tissue
DeletePremise: I believe that transplanting animal organs and embryological tissue to humans (xenotransplantation) is a useful tool for future medicine, and more research and funding should go into the field of study.
Factual Claims:
1.) When samples were collected from 160 patients who had been treated with various living pig tissues up to 12 years earlier, no evidence of the porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV) transmission was detected in any patient.(4)
2.) According to a 1997 survey by the National Kidney Foundation, nearly two-thirds of the American public accepts cross-species transplantation as a viable option to increase the number of organs and tissue transplanted and lives to be saved.(5)
3.) Because of the lack of available donors in this country, 2,025 kidney patients, 1,347 liver patients, 458 heart patients, and 361 lung patients died in 2001 while waiting for life-saving organ transplants. In theory, xenotransplantation would allow the healthcare system to create vast stores of viable organs for donation.(6)
4.) A 38-year-old male with advanced AIDS, who had failed to respond to triple-drug antiretroviral therapy, underwent baboon BMT in 1995. The patient tolerated the procedure without complication and lived an additional eight years after the transplant.(7)
5.) In 1963 and 1964, Dr. Thomas Starzl performed six xenotransplantations of baboon kidneys into humans. Survival rates among the patients ranged from 19 to 98 days.(8)
Conclusion: Therefore, xenotransplantation is a useful tool for future medicine, and more research and funding should go into the field of study.
Sources:
(4) Groth, Carl G. (2007). The potential advantages of transplanting organs from pig to man: A transplant Surgeon's view. Indian Journal of Urology. US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2721611/
(5) Biotechnology Industry Organization. (2010). Xenotransplantation: The Benefits and Risks of Special Organ Transplantation. Retrieved from http://www.bio.org/articles/ xenotransplantation-benefits-and-risks-special-organ-transplantation
(6) Xenotransplantation: Can an animal organ save your life? Science and Society. Retrieved from http://www.scienceandsociety.emory.edu/GMO/Xenotransplantation.htm
(7) (2004). Baboon bone-marrow xenotransplant in a patient with advanced HIV disease: case report and 8-year follow-up. US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15591945
(8) Goglia, Ross, Henry, Matthew, Lawrence, Robert. Xenotransplantation Case Study. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2F128.143.168.25%2Fclasses%2F200R%2FProjects%2Ffall_2005%2FXenotransplantation.doc&ei=mFBwUsO3E4f1kQf1hYA4&usg=AFQjCNGKVdC7-_3qhBb1MUjKLegef5GMPg
Stem Cell Meat
Delete1. $332,000 cost to produce stem cell burger (1)
2. extreme lack of funding at the moment to make sufficient amount (2)
3. scientists can’t find an alternative to grow meat in besides dead animals (2)
4. if stem cell meat would grow, this could potential making thousands of farmers lose business
5. the possible future effects are completely unknown. These could be very harmful for consumers.
1. Lenoir, F. (n.d.). Here It Comes … The $375,000 Lab-Grown Beef Burger. Retrieved August 2, 2013, from http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/08/here-it-comes-%E2%80%A6-375000-lab-grown-beef-burger
2. Kitamura, M. (2013, August 5). $332,000 Stem-cell burger doesn't quite taste like beef. Retrieved October 22, 2013, from
Raising animals for human organ transplantation would save thousands of lives and is ethical as long as steps are done to make sure the human patient will have a fighting chance to live like if they were receiving a human organ.
Delete-Xenotransplantation would provide a solution not only to the number of transplants that could be performed but also to other problems inherent in the present system of dependency on human organs (Cooper & Lanza)
-From the perspective of the pig, there is surely no difference in being slaughter to provide food or donor organs for humans.
-From the perspective of the dying patient in urgent need of a donor organ, the potential risks would seem worth taking. To quote Peter Medawar: “One can be as philosophical as you like about the ethics of transplantation. The fact of the matter is, people would rather be alive than dead.” Equally, this can be said of xenotransplantation.
-The use of animal organs could potentially alleviate the critical worldwide shortage of donor organs for clinical transplantation. Because of the strong immune response to xenografts, success will probably depend upon new strategies of immune suppression and induction of tolerance.
-Miniature swine have several advantages over other potential donor species as a xenograft donor for clinical use. Among these advantages are: (1) unlimited availability; (2) size (similar to human beings); (3) breeding characteristics; (4) physiologic and immunologic similarities to humans.
There is a very high hope in the use of animal organs for human use. As this research develops, the potential of saving thousands due to the lack of donor organs is miraculous.
Cooper & Lanza. "Google Books." Google Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. <http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-iLo6rdWTn0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=using+animal+organs+for+humans&ots=1o3SOqBrQD&sig=kQ6BWjPoYlAj4q6Uzmg7jMsdE28#v=onepage&q=using%20animal%20organs%20for%20humans&f=false>.
Sachs, David. "The pig as a potential xenograft donor." The pig as a potential xenograft donor. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016524279490135X>.
Topic: Stem Cell Meat
DeletePremise: The process of using stem cell meat in order to make mimics that are based off of hamburgers should be used.
Scientific and Factual Claims:
a. By using stem cell meat in order to create hamburgers, humans would have the opportunity to not need to butcher or slaughter a cow in order to have a meaty substance (1).
b. The practice of using stem cell meat reduces that need for land and water by ninety percent, and also cuts the overall energy use by seventy percent (1).
c. Cultured meat does not impose any kind of threat or competition to farming organic vegetables (2).
d. Stem cell meat does not consist of any fat and is full of protein (1).
e. When retrieving the stem cells used for the process of creating cultural meat, it is done a pain free manner. As a result, the cattle’s welfare increases (2).
Conclusion: All in all, the practice of using stem cells in order to produce cultured meat has proven itself to be a notable example of an alternative to the modern day process of butchering and slaughtering animals.
Sources:
1. Jha, A., (2013). Synthetic meat: how the world's costliest burger made it on to the plate. The guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/ science/2013/aug/05/synthetic-meat-burger-stem-cells.
2. (2013). Cultured Meat; manufacturing of meat products through "tissue-engineering" technology. Future food: meat without livestock. Retrieved from http://www.futurefood.org/in-vitro-meat/index_en.php.
Genetically Modifying Pigs to Grow Human Organs
DeleteUsing pigs to grow human organs is unethical and wrong because it is taking the life of one organism and using only to benefit the life of another.
1. The pigs that undergo this process have no real quality of life. It takes away their entire sense of being a pig. They are literally just being used for parts of their bodies.
2. They are simply being used for another organism’s wellbeing instead of their own. Pigs most likely resemble humans in their DNA so scientists decided to use human stem cells to grow the organs inside of the pigs. Once a person needs that organ (say a heart or lungs), the pig has to die for it.
3. This technique is still very new so scientists do not have enough history to know whether or not there will be problems with the organs into the future.
4. Stem cell research in itself is controversial, and now scientists want to take the controversial stem cells and put them into a pig. This whole process is widely frowned upon because of all the unknown factors and the overall harm that it can do to the pigs.
5. One of the justifications of this process is that people already use organs from pigs such as heart valves, but that is a completely different topic. That is taking an already slaughtered pig that would just be disposed of anyway and using it for the good of science. This process is taking a pig from birth, placing alien cells within its embryo and raising a pig to basically not be a pig on the inside just so humans can have an organ when they need one. It simply disrupts nature.
Sources:
Ryall, Julian (20 June 2013). Human organs 'could be grown in animals within a year'. The Telegraph. Retrieved from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10132347/Human-organs-could-be-grown-in-animals-within-a-year.html
Gayomali, Chris (26 June 2013). Human Organs, Grown In Pigs. Retrieved from: http://theweek.com/article/index/246171/human-organs-grown-in-pigs
Humans
ReplyDeleteUsing genetic tests to determine healthcare
DeleteI believe that it is unethical for insurance companies to use genetic tests to determine health care rates.
-Many people without genetic markers will develop diseases that have a genetic component, such as heart disease and cancer.This becomes very controversial because the people who eventually develop a genetic disease will not have paid the higher insurance costs generally implemented with carriers of the disease. Therefore, higher rates based on genetic testing will not be an equivalent pay (Riba).
-Including genetic testing and treatment in an already a very expensive insurance product will make the insurance extremely expensive and out of reach to people who can barely afford the insurance now (Bykerk).
-Information Symmetry is only useful to the health care provider, and can often put the protection of money over the protection an individual’s life (Bykerk).
-In the same way current legislation blocks the use of genetic information for discrimination in the workplace, people must be protected from health care rejection because they may be the ones who need it most (Bykerk).
-According to a study done by the American Journal of Public Health the death rates of people without health insurance is about 40% times higher risk of death rates. By turning people away from Health Care or medical insurance based on genetic test results, companies are in essence condemning people to death only to save their own money (Cecere).
Human life should be valued above all else, especially equality and means to sustain life. The idea that insurance companies and health care providers would like to turn people away because of a predisposed genetic condition is morally outrageous. I feel that using genetic testing for the purpose of determining health care accessibility is unethical.
Riba, S. (2007) the use of genetic information in health insurance: who will be helped, who will be harmed and possible long term effects. USC Student Studies. Retrieved from: http://weblaw.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/rlsj/assets/docs/10_Riba_Final.pdf
Bykerk, C. (2002) when genetic testing collides. Contingencies March/April. Retrieved from:
http://www.contingencies.org/marapr02/genetic.pdf
Cecere, D., Cambridge Health Alliance (2009) new study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage. HARVARDgazette. Retrieved from: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteEmbryonic stem cell research is ethical.
Deletea. Stem cells show promising opportunities for the advancement of self-renewal of human body parts, as may be damaged by disease or injury (Edmonds).
b. Embryonic stem cells are based off of undeveloped human embryos - which have none of the characteristics we use to qualify something as human (Hug).
c. Many embryos do not develop into a human life even if transferred to the uterus as a result of failure to implant and other disorders (Hug).
d. Embryos donated for stem cell research are otherwise simply discarded by the mother (Siegel, 2008).
e. In Vitro Fertilization (a practice almost universally considered to be ethical) produces large numbers of unused embryos which are otherwise discarded; IVF is one of the most major sources of embryos for stem cell research (Siegel, 2008).
f. One embryo, which can only be considered a possible human life, can be used to produce an entire line of stem cells which could save the lives of many actual (non-hypothetical) lives (Siegel, 2008).
Because embryonic stem cell research has the potential to save many lives based off of singular cells which are only possible future human lives, it is an ethical subject of research and an ethical area for medicinal advances.
Edmonds, M. (n.d.). Is it ethical to use stem cells?. HowStuffWorks. Retrieved October 23, 2013, from http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/ethical-to-use-stem-cells.htm
Hug, K. (n.d.). Embryonic stem cell research: an ethical dilemma | Europe's stem cell hub | EuroStemCell. EuroStemCell. Retrieved October 23, 2013, from http://www.eurostemcell.org/factsheet/embryonic-stem-cell-research-ethical-dilemma
Siegel, A. (2008, April 25). Ethics of Stem Cell Research. Stanford University. Retrieved October 23, 2013, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stem-cells/
I believe the use of technology to create genetically designed babies is an immoral use of genetically modification in humans.
Delete-The process of cutting DNA out of other fertilized embryos for the “designer baby” eliminates any chance the original embryos had to grow into a child (Hanlon).
-Genetic modification of human embryos automatically results in the alteration of the human genome (Hanlon).
-Designer babies can potentially have issues affecting their growth, development and aging due to the changes in their DNA (Johnson).
-GMO’s in livestock and plants have commonly shown these genetically enhanced organisms to have fertility issues. This causes reason to believe these genetically modified babies could be infertile as adults (Ananda).
-Scientists fear the possibility that the inheriting of genes from three parents could result in new races of humans with the desired characteristics, thus altering our society as we know it (Ananda).
Research shows the many health risks of changing the genes and genomes of humans while they are developing as well as an infinite number of unknown risks. Although it may be a new way out for infertile couples, the potential health risks cannot be ignored.
Hanlon, Michael. (2013). world’s first gm babies born. Retrieved from:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-43767/Worlds-GM-babies-born.html
Ananda, Rady. (2013). genetically modified babies. Retrieved from:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/genetically-modified-babies/5350370
Johnson, Lance. (2013). genetically modified babies? new science lets parents select child’s genetic sequence, rearrange dna. Retrieved from:
http://www.naturalnews.com/041493_genetic_modification_babies_gene_sequence.html#
Genetically modified babies or “designer babies” may have benefits like preventing diseases but it could also be abused and used to choose hair and ect.
Delete• Can be used to remove genes that can be linked to certain medical conditions. (source 1)
• Adding genes to enhance an individual is cheating genetics. (Source 1)
• Is the technology used in genetically modifying safe for humans? (Source 2)
• Inserting a copy NR2B may disrupt the function of another gene. (source 1)
• There are many unknowns associated with designer babies. (source 2)
There are a lot of unknowns with genetically modifying babies; however’ there are benefits with the possibilities of removing diseases but I don’t believe it should be used to enhance academic and or athletic ability.
Agar, N. (April 2006) Designer Babies: Ethical Conditions. Retrieved from http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/agar.html
Source 1
Darnovsky, M. (November 30, 2001) The Case Against Designer Babies. Retrieved from http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=3540
Source 2
Transgenic Application
DeleteArgument: Transgenic applications are ethical as a cure, when used to help a person’s health.
1. Sharks have astonishingly low incidences of cancer, and could have a gene that allows them to combat cancer and other diseases. Imagine using this gene in human transgenic research to contribute to the cure for cancer.
2. Since the 1980s, much improvement has been made in the implementation of transgenic research. Development of this field has allowed for reduced cost and less animal deaths resulting from the research.
3. Using human genetics to develop pigs with human organs is currently a large focus for some transgenic researchers. This could allow pigs to be used for harvesting human organs when they were needed by sick individuals.
4. Original testing of this technique on humans is entirely voluntary, and no sick individual would be subjected to transgenic application against their will. It would simply be an option for people who felt that they truly needed genetic medical help.
5. Even though there are people whose ethical or religious views might lead them to oppose the use of human transgenic application, the technique would be used for treatment and not prevention.
Conclusion: It is acceptable to implement human transgenic research as long as the technology is used to treat sick individuals and not alter other characteristics.
Sources:
Houdebine, Louis (August 2005). Use of transgenic animals to improve human health and animal production. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16008757.
Handwerk, Brian (20 August 2003). Do Sharks Hold Secret to Human Cancer Fight? Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/0820_030820_sharkcancer.html.
Bevington, Linda and Jones, Nancy (1 March 2000). Human/Animal Transgenics: When is a Mouse Not a Mouse? Retrieved from http://cbhd.org/content/humananimal-transgenics-when-mouse-not-mouse.
Designer Babies
DeleteArgument: The option to genetically modify a baby’s genes for personal gain or for petty enhancements is morally and ethically wrong and should not be available to expecting parents.
1. Although designer babies represent a leap forward in the science of genetic engineering, babies are not meant to be science experiments.
2. Designer babies could face severe social consequences as they grow older.
3. Scientists do not know all of the possible side effects of genetically engineering babies, and the babies’ health could be negatively affected in the future.
4. Genetic engineering could be used to improve the health of a designer baby, but there are many ethical issues around the subject and this issue is focused solely on the restriction of enhancement for personal motivations.
5. If expecting parents were allowed to engineer their baby’s genetics, the world would not know where to draw the line. Also, if a baby’s genetic traits could be tailored to the wishes of their parents, the parents could choose to give their baby a trait that the child would eventually find undesirable. For example, in 2007 deaf activists in England tried to stop a bill that would only allow certain kinds of genetic engineering. The deaf couples felt that they should be able to engineer their children to be deaf. This was most likely with the hope of promoting togetherness within their family. If parents were able to intentionally give their child a disability, how much further would they go?
Conclusion: Parents should not be allowed to genetically engineer their baby for frivolous or unnecessary personal motivations.
Sources:
Bonsor, Kevin and Layton, Julia (n.d.). How Designer Children Work. Retrieved from: http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/designer-children.htm.
Ly, Sarah (25 September 2013). Ethics of Designer Babies. Retrieved from: http://embryo.asu.edu/pages/ethics-designer-babies.
Genetically Engineering Humans
DeleteAlthough genetically engineering “designer babies” could help prevent illnesses, it opens up the door to immoral practices such as the ability to choose a person’s eye color, skin tone, or hair color.
1.There is a greater chance of parents having a child to save the one they already have because they can ensure the two children are similar.
Bonsor, K. Layton, J.(N.d.) How designer children work. Retrieved from http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/designer-children.htm.
2.Selection of desirable traits in a child set up a revived foundation for prejudice and inequality.
Steere, M. (30 October 2008). Designer babies: creating the perfect child. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/30/designer.babies/
3.Children would be seen as products, rather than humans. There is no need to objectify a baby at such a young age when they cannot make their own decisions. (Same as above).
4.There is no research on how the genetic modification will impact the life of the baby. They could be more susceptible to other diseases because there genes are different than the genes of a naturally born baby that have built up resistance against other diseases. There is also no knowledge on how it will impact how long the baby will live.
Darvonsky,M. (30 November 2000). The case against designer babies. Retrieved from http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=3540
5.These practices could be extremely unsafe. The child could be potentially harmed forever if something goes wrong. Mistakes are going to be made during the process, and then whatr happens to the child? (same as above)
The genetic modification of babies in order to achieve desired traits is extremely unethical because it creates inequality, unsafe environments, and potential unknown consequences.
“Savior Siblings”
DeleteArgument: the genetic modification of a child in the womb to be a perfect donor match to an ill sibling is ethical.
- There is nothing wrong with treating a child as a means to an end as long as that child is not treated as though they are soley for that purpose. For example, a patient receiving a blood transfusion has used the blood donor as a means to their own end.
- The idea that allowing savior siblings to be genetically modified will lead to “designer babies” uses a slippery slope argument and is a logical fallacy. The two are morally different, and so there is nothing wrong with allowing one and opposing the other.
- The fact that parents are willing to conceive a second child for the first suggests that they are extremely committed to preserving the well-being of their children and that they will value the second child as well.
-In the absence of unrelated problems, the chance of a savior sibling having a negative quality of life is very remote.
-Prohibiting savior siblings would inevitably result in the deaths of a number of existing ill children.
To conclude, it is ethical to allow the genetic modification of an embryo to be able to donate blood, bone marrow, organs, etc. to an ill sibling because the genetically modified child will most likely have a positive quality of life, and also manage to save the life of a sibling that otherwise could have passed away.
Sheldon, S., & Wilkinson, S. (2003). Should selecting savior siblings be banned? Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733988/pdf/v030p00533.pdf
I believe that using genetic tests to determine health care costs should be a legal and an encouraged practice. These tests improve the fairness and the pricing of insurance that cannot be done without it. It is for these reasons that insurance companies should use genetic testing:
Delete- The age-old adage, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” is incredibly relevant to this argument. This expression means that is is better to try to avoid problems in the first place, rather than trying to fix them once they arise. In this scenario, insurance companies can use preventative measures to prevent the onset of a fatal disease. Without access to this information, more people would suffer from illnesses that could have been prevented through diet change, medication, or frequent checkups. In the end, the insurance holder will have to pay less for any potential preventative treatments than that of a potential illness. (Reba, 2006)
- Information helps fair pricing. If an individual is very likely to have breast cancer soon, then their insurance prices would be correspondingly higher to offset the price of treatments. If an individual is more likely less likely to have breast cancer, the premium for that individual would be lower. This encourages fair pricing because people only pay for what they specifically are preconditioned for.(Reba, 2006)
- Tests make insurance policies mathematical fair. Insurance is inherently a gamble: either someone pays for decades and nothing bad happens to them, or someone pays for a month and they are diagnosed with an expensive disease. This is unfair to the individual in the first scenario, and the company in the second scenario. Tests will greatly reduce imbalances in payments because using the likelihood of disease/injury as the primary factor in setting the price of the premium takes the gambling out of insurance for both the individual and the corporation. (Reba, 2006)
- Insurance plans can be specifically tailored to suit the best option for individuals. For example, insurance companies can split up broad health insurance coverage into smaller segments, like an add-on insurance policy specific for heart disease. This can diversify the options the consumer has, while limiting the risks of both the insurance company and the insurance-holder. This can also create a consumer created demand, where an individual might request a certain premium for specific insurances, and use genetic information to assess the fairness of that price. (Reba, 2006)
- The health insurance price for low income family is decreased. This is because of the elimination of unnecessary components included in a broad healthcare plan. For example, a man who knows he is not in substantial risk of prostate or colon cancer can negotiate with the insurance company to just pay for a plan which just covers physical injury and heart disease, which would lower the cost of the insurance premium. (McWilliam et. al., 2006)
In conclusion, genetic tests should be used to determine health care costs because of the necessity of preventative measures, fair pricing, and consumer empowerment.
Works Cited:
Riba, S. C. (2006). Use of Genetic Information in Health Insurance: Who Will Be Helped, Who Will Be Harmed and Possible Long-Term Effects, The. S. Cal. Rev. L. & Soc. Just., 16, 469.
http://weblaw.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/rlsj/assets/docs/10_Riba_Final.pdf
McWilliam, A., Lutter, R. W., & Nardinelli, C. (2006). Health care savings from personalizing medicine using genetic testing: the case of warfarin (pp. 06-23). AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.
http://regulation2point0.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/04/WP06-23_topost.pdf
I believe that using genetic tests to determine health care costs is unethical. Even though access to this information has been advocated for by insurance companies, it is for the best that genetic information is left alone. Multiple arguments strongly support this premise:
Delete- Low income individuals and families will be forced to pay more for their health care. These are the people that need it the most, and will be unable to pay a high premium. Allowing the use of genetic tests “justifies” higher costs due to the likelihood of a disease, which the poor cannot afford. Denying them health care through price gouging will only make the state of health care in the United States worse. (Reba, 2006)
- Genetics are inherently unfair. One has absolutely no say in their genetic information when they are born. Because of this, they are destined for exorbitant premiums. Companies should not be able to charge for a factor that is completely out of the individuals control. Doing so would be unfair to all individuals. (Reba, 2006)
- Genetic information is private property. It should not be in the hands of our insurance company, of all people. Our privacy, and its extension, genetic information, is for ourselves only. Privacy should not be encroached on, which is what exactly would happen if genetic testing becomes the norm: insurance companies would require an individual’s genetic information, and if he/she doesn’t release it, he/she could be denied coverage. (Reba, 2006)
- Judging an individual’s worth based on one’s genetic information is discriminatory. Genetics already plays a large role in current interactions: one’s height, weight, sex, and skin color are all determined and assessed immediately upon sight. Genetic information can exacerbate the problem: the likelihood for disease and any other genetic matters can easily be sold or made available to employers, who may lay off workers due to an inherent genetic “problem”. (Reba, 2006)
- Insurance companies will use statistics to fool people into paying more. This is because statistical inference to determine costs is a very flawed process. For example, a 30% chance of breast cancer doesn’t justify a 30% increase in prices. There are many other factors besides genetics in determining the likelihood for cancer, such as diet, UV exposure, weight, and much more. Statistical information can unfairly justify an extreme premium. (Zick et. al., 2005)
In conclusion, using genetics tests to determine health care costs is flawed, discriminatory, and unfair. Insurance companies will abuse these tests to exploit those with “bad” genetics (or even "good" genetics) into paying more.
Works Cited:
Riba, S. C. (2006). Use of Genetic Information in Health Insurance: Who Will Be Helped, Who Will Be Harmed and Possible Long-Term Effects, The. S. Cal. Rev. L. & Soc. Just., 16, 469.
http://weblaw.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/rlsj/assets/docs/10_Riba_Final.pdf
Zick, C. D., Mathews, C. J., Roberts, J. S., Cook-Deegan, R., Pokorski, R. J., & Green, R. C. (2005). Genetic testing for Alzheimer’s disease and its impact on insurance purchasing behavior. Health Affairs, 24(2), 483-490.
DeleteI strongly do not believe in genetically engineering humans to experiment on them. One example of this being in the movie My Sister’s Keeper. I feel that there are too many problems with the process of changing a baby’s genes so that they have certain traits. I feel as though the risk factors from this process are too extreme to chance.
• Introducing genes into a human by genetic engineering can cause effects that can be permanent and consequences of this will be prevalent (Human Genetics).
• Issues relating to moral and religious aspects: does man have the right to alter genes of living beings for desirable traits (Human Genetics).
• Genes create effects on other genes, which could cause harmful effects of already existing genes (Agar, 2006).
• The child has no choice whether or not they would like their genes to be genetically engineered (Future For All).
• Destroying the embryos that were not chosen leads to unethical opinions of “destroying life” (Johnson, 2013).
With all of these negative and harmful effects that could be caused from genetically engineering backs up my argument against this process. So many problems and issues can go wrong during the process that the pros to this argument seem unsafe.
Agar, Nicholas. (2006, April). Designer babies: ethical considerations. Retrieved from http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/agar.html
Future for all. Retrieved from http://www.futureforall.org/bioengineering/designer-babies.html
Human genetics. Retrieved from http://humangenetic.org/human-genetic-engineering-cons/
Johnson, Priya. (2013, March 20). Pros and cons of designer babies. Retrieved from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/pros-and-cons-of-designer-babies.html
Topic: Human Genomics: Using genetic tests to determine healthcare
DeletePremise: I believe that using genetic tests to determine healthcare is an effective measure that should be further researched and used in the field of medicine.
Factual Claims:
1.) Looking at the genetic differences between people, which is one variation every 500 to 1,000 bases (letters), will usher in a new era of personalized medicine. Currently more than 1.4 million of these variations, known as SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) have been found. Overall, humans are 99.8% genetically similar.(9)
2.) Just 483 existing "targets" in the body account for all the pharmaceutical drugs on the market. The Human Genome Project and the SNPs research will provide thousands of extra "doorways" or destinations for new medicines and drugs to work on. New ways of tackling asthma, Alzheimer's disease and depression are already being looked at, using new genetic targets.(9)
3.) The Human Genome Project has already fueled the discovery of more than 1,800 disease genes.(10)
4.) At least 350 biotechnology-based products resulting from the Human Genome Project are currently in clinical trials.(10)
5.) There are now more than 2,000 genetic tests for human conditions. These tests enable patients to learn their genetic risks for disease and also help healthcare professionals to diagnose disease. As a result of the Human Genome Project, today’s researchers can find a gene suspected of causing an inherited disease in a matter of days, rather than the years it took before the genome sequence was in hand.(10)
Conclusion: Therefore, using genetic tests to determine healthcare is an effective measure that should be further researched and used in the field of medicine.
Sources:
(9) (2012). Ten facts from the Human Genome Project. Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute. Retrieved from http://www.sanger.ac.uk/about/press/2001/publication2001/facts.html
(10) (2013). Human Genome Project. NIH: Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/ ViewFactSheet.aspx?csid=45
Designer Babies
DeleteArgument: although preimplantation genetic diagnosis (that is, selecting certain traits in an unborn child before fertilization) can be used for many beneficial causes, until laws are reformed to restrict the ability of this process, PCG can be used for superficial purposes and is therefore unethical.
-Currently, no common law exists regulating the process of preimplantation genetic diagnosis, and considering the US government’s laissez-faire policies on other reproductive issues, it is not likely that one will be put into legislation. (Stankovic, 2005)
-In the future, the capacity to perform genetic testing is expected to grow exponentially, leading to embryo selection based on trivial traits. Children could become like made-to-order products. (Stankovic, 2005)
-There is no way of knowing what is in the child’s best interest, that is, whether the child would want to be genetically modified or would prefer to stay the way he or she was conceived. This could lead to resentment later in life from the child, because a very important decision was made without consent. (Stankovic, 2005)
-Although many scientists are deterring parents from using sex-selection (the first step in PCG research) for personal reasons, it has not stopped them from continuing to pick the sex of their child to “even out their families” among other trivial things. If scientists cannot stop citizens from using PCG for something as simple as sex-selection, when more extreme methods of foetal modification come out, it will be extremely difficult to regulate whether traits are being selected for medical or for superficial reasons. (Lemonick, 1999)
-In worst-case scenarios, future society could discriminate against non genetically altered children, leading to an extremely polarized society. Those who could afford PCG would have an extreme advantage in all aspects of life compared to those who could not afford the procedure. (Lemonick, 1999)
To conclude, the downfalls of PCG and selecting designer babies outweigh the benefits, making the process unethical. Most of this is due to lack of regulation, however. If the United States government could pass laws tightening the qualifications one must have to genetically modify their children, then the process would be restricted to foetuses in need and not to change superficial traits.
Stankovic, B. (February 7, 2005). 'It's a designer baby!'-opinions on regulation of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1756573
Lemonick, M. (1999). Designer babies. Retrieved from Time Magazine
Human Cloning for Transplanting Organs
Delete1. Cloning for organ transplanting would eliminate the need for anti-rejection drugs and can cause some many problems with donor recipients. (1)
2. Currently in America, “2,300 of the 40,000 Americans who needed a new heart in 1997 got one.” That means that approximately 94% did not receive one. (2)
3. “The failures can cause serious illness, and possible death. Therefore, cloning human organs is very beneficial to humanity. If we cloned human organs we would be eliminating a major killer to the human race, and providing patients worldwide with a healthy cloned organ.”(2) This quote is extremely hypocritically. It states that allowing cloning for organ donation would save a large amount of human lives. This does not take into place all the lives which would suffer simply because they were the clone. These clones would be at risk for death too, creating even more death to prevent death.
4. Virginia's law also may ban human cloning for any purpose. This is to protect each individual’s life and their rights. (3)
1. Organ Cloning. (n.d.). Retrieved 23, 2013, from http://www.cloneorgans.com/
2. The Human Cloning Foundation (n.d.). Cloning is Beneficial to Humanity. Retrieved 23, 2013, from http://www.humancloning.org/essays/adam.htm
3. National Conference of State Legislatures (n.d.). Human Cloning Laws. Retrieved 23, 2013, from http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/human-cloning-laws.aspx
Premise: Insurance companies should not be able to access their member’s genetic testing results.
Delete• Genetic testing only points out only perceived genetic distortions and genetic mutations instead of actual genetic medical problems. This means a perceived complication could turn into nothing at all. (1)
• There was a law passed in 2008 making it illegal for health insurance companies or employers to discriminate against those who had genetic testing. This doesn’t include life insurance companies. (2)
• Genetic testing is used in a good way to individualize health care plans, but if not used in the correct ways, can lead to people being cut off from insurance because of the outcome of their tests. (2)
• If a person has health or life insurance before they have genetic testing, they could be restricted from moving to a different state because of fear of losing their insurance. (1)
• Social attitudes and misconceptions about genetic mutations cause discrimination because the thought is that they have a terrible disease while the reality is that they could have mild symptoms of a disease. (1)
Conclusion: Insurance companies should only be allowed to access their member’s genetic testing to give them specialized care, not to withhold insurance from them.
Sources:
(1) Billings, P. R., Kohn, M.A., Cuevas, M., Beckwith, J., Alper, J.S., Natowicz, M.R. (1992). Discrimination as a consequence of genetic testing. Am. J. Hum. Genet. Vol. 50, 476-482
(2) National Human Genome Research Institute. (2012). Genetic information nondiscrimination act of 2008. Retrieved from http://www.genome.gov/10002328
Premise: “Designer babies” are ethical only when solving medical problems or related topics, not when the babies are being altered for cosmetic purposes.
Delete• There are currently no regulations on preimplementation genetic diagnosis (PGD) being used in any form, meaning fertility clinics can charge ahead with no much guidance. (1)
• Right now only the sex of the baby and the most serious of genetic diseases can be seen and dealt with, but it won’t be long before parents will be able to control more. (2)
• Some states have passed laws that if the genetic testing is for health reasons then the parents have full decision-making but when the testing is done for cosmetic reasons the decisions making is left up to the state. (1)
• Letting parent’s weed out certain traits, such as a predisposition to homosexuality, could lead to those who do have those traits being thought of as second-class citizens. (2)
• While many geneticists are only interested in solving health concerns, “reprogenicts” is fueled only by parents’ wishes and desires for their children. Something fueled by parents’ money could possible take off in no time. (2)
Conclusion: The government needs to mandate PGD now while they still can, making it only for use in health concerns and not cosmetics of the next generations.
Sources:
(1) Stankovic, Bratislav, 'It's a Designer Baby!' - Opinions on Regulation of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (February 7, 2005). UCLA Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 3, 2005. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1756573
(2) Lemonick, M. (1999). Designer babies. Retrieved from Time Magazine
Topic: Cloning Desirable DNA to Avoid Illnesses/Un-favored Genes
DeletePremise: The process of cloning a human’s DNA in order to avoid many undesirable traits and diseases is not a reliable strategy.
Scientific or Factual Claims:
a. Cloning consist of a low success rate. For instance, the famous Dolly the Sheep experiment took scientist 276 attempts in order to get the process correct to where they received their desired result of another cloned sheep. Unfortunately for the scientist, the statistics for the work completed on many mice, as well as other mammals, has proven to be the same. With that being said, the total success rate for cloning done on animals lies between three and four percent (1).
b. Within the science world it has been confirmed that when cells divide, their chromosomes get shorter. This is a result of the telomeres in the DNA shrinking each time the genetic material is copied. Depicting on how long the telomeres are, a cloned animal can have different amounts of youth within their given genes. As of today, many scientists are still unsure as to why exactly it is that the length of each animal’s telomeres appears to be different. With that being said, it is not safe to rely on clones for it is still unpredictable as to how long they will live (2).
c. The embryonic stem cells used within the cloning process have a tendency to uncontrollably divide. Such an inauspicious action can result in the production of a cancerous tumor (1).
d. Clones produced from animals have revealed a trend to consistently be larger at birth than an average animal of the same species. This effect of using the process of cloning is known as “Large Offspring Syndrome,” and can often times make the course of birth extra difficult for the mother (1).
e. Previously produced clones that have not developed the Large Offspring Syndrome have appeared to have kidney or brain malformations, as well as impaired immune systems, that have proven to cause problems in later life (2).
Conclusion: Overall, conducted experiments dealing with the subject of replicating a mammal’s genetic material has proven that cloning is not a reliable process to keep many preferred traits and genes in today’s society.
Sources:
1. Cloning and genetic engineering. Public understanding of biotechnology.
Retrieved from http://www.pub.ac.za/factfiles/cloning.php.
2. (2013). What are the risks of cloning? Learn. genetics: genetic science
learning center. Retrieved from http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/cont
ent/tech/cloning/cloningrisks/
Designer Babies
DeleteGenetically modifying babies when they are still in the womb for vain and unnecessary adjustments such as gender change or physical qualities is unethical and should not be permitted.
1. Genetically modifying children in the womb is a very new science that has not had time to mature. Scientists do not know the repercussions of the modifications yet and therefore it is unsafe and may be unhealthy for the children later in life.
2. Children are not meant to be science experiments. There is no reason that people should have their children’s genes modified just so they can more physical qualities or look more aesthetically pleasing.
3. If parents can make the decision to have their children male, taller, and big boned so that they would be better at basketball, then that is not okay. The idea of changing your child just shows the vanity of the world and who is to say where the line gets drawn past this point. When does changing everything about a child become okay?
4. The only time that changing a child in the womb’s genetics is if there is a serious health problem that doctors could fix with these practices.
5. There is a greater risk of injuring the baby or the mother if the decision to genetically modify the child is made. There is physical poking and prodding, or the child is produced in a test tube, which is no sound way to start a life.
Sources:
Bonsor, Kevin and Layton, Julia (n.d.). How Designer Children Work. Retrieved from: http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/designer-children.htm.
Ly, Sarah (25 September 2013). Ethics of Designer Babies. Retrieved from: http://embryo.asu.edu/pages/ethics-designer-babies.
Transgenic Applications
DeleteTransgenic applications are only ethical in situations where it would help treat an illness.
1. The idea of transgenic application is a fairly new idea and very controversial. In order for this science to be religiously and ethically sound, it should only be used for treatment rather than prevention, because once you play God, then who is to say where we stop.
2. Researchers have discovered that sharks have a very low chance of getting cancer because of a certain gene found in their DNA. Scientists have not found out much about this gene yet, but if it was used to help treat cancer, then this would be an acceptable use of transgenic applications.
3. There are studies being done currently on growing human organs in a pig’s body. This would be unethical because it would be for the preventative measures and is harming one organism for the benefit of the other. It makes humans out to almost be indirect parasites.
4. When animals such as a rabbit are being used to experiment with by inserting florescent jellyfish DNA into their bodies that is when transgenic applications are unethical. There is no medical anomaly that could possibly come out of that experiment. It is not for health reasons but purely for experimentation.
5. This process would only be ethical if the human being gave permission to be subjected to this. If they felt that they needed medical help on the genetic scale, then it is in their power to agree to the procedures.
Sources:
Elliot D. (2013). Living, breathing, glowing rabbits successfully born. CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57598551/
Handwerk, Brian (20 August 2003). Do Sharks Hold Secret to Human Cancer Fight? Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/0820_030820_sharkcancer.html.
Bevington, Linda and Jones, Nancy (1 March 2000). Human/Animal Transgenics: When is a Mouse Not a Mouse? Retrieved from http://cbhd.org/content/humananimal-transgenics-when-mouse-not-mouse.
Other
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe ability to patent forms of life is unethical and leads to unethical consequences.
Deletea. Gene patents halt and/or dramatically increase the price of medical testing, resulting in decreased accessibility to many (Crichton, 2007).
b. The ability to patent genetic code, far from encouraging innovation as patents are supposed to, decreases innovation as it limits research to those with rights to the patent or those who can afford to pay royalties (Crichton, 2007).
c. Patenting of seeds prevents their natural distribution, further corporatizing food production and decreasing the ability for self-sustained production (sustinance farming, small operations, etc.) (Cummins, 2013).
d. Third world countries cannot afford to pay royalties on genetic patents, preventing them from gaining access to newer forms of medicine (K. K. & M.E.).
e. Crop gene patents enforce control over third world markets by first world corporations, decreasing food supply and fomenting colonialist structures (Kimbrel, 1996).
In conclusion, patenting life is unethical in that it decreases the opportunities for research, decreases availability of food and medicine, and cements violent corporate hegemony.
Crichton, M. (2007, February 13). Patenting life. The New York Times. Retrieved October 23, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/opinion/13crichton.html?_r=0
Cummins, R. (2013, September 7). GMO and the corporate patenting of living organisms: Monsanto's patents on life. Global Research. Retrieved October 23, 2013, from http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-and-the-corporate-patenting-of-living-organisms-monsantos-patents-on-life/5324781
Kimbrell, Andrew. (1996). Biocolonization, the patenting of life and the global market in body parts. In Mander, Jerry & Goldsmith, Edward (Eds.), The case against the global economy, and for a turn toward the local. Sierra Club Books.
K, K., & M, E. (n.d.). Patenting of Life. Patenting of Life. Retrieved October 23, 2013, from http://web.hcpss.org/~paul_wiedorn/biotech/patentingoflife.htm
Artificial Intelligence
DeleteArgument: the production of artificial intelligence to help make tasks easier is ethical.
-Having all the information and facility in the world won’t, by itself, generate ethical behavior or human qualities (such as compassion, intuition, and creativity) in a machine. (Schulze 2012)
-Because of this, unless extreme advancement occurs, artificial intelligence will never be able to complete tasks that require ethical ‘human’ behavior. (Schulze 2012)
-Without these human characteristics, the only ethical issues that come with artificial intelligence are the same issues we have with more conventional artifacts, such as factory machinery. (Bryson 2013)
-The creators of machines with artificial intelligence have the obligation to inform the public on the capabilities of the software and not exploit the ignorance in thinking AI is human. (Bryson 2013)
-The benefits of using artificial intelligence to complete tasks is astronomical; autonomous machinery would be able to work faster and more efficiently, without the risks of human error. (Roberts 2005)
To conclude, artificial intelligence does not have the human characteristics to warrant “human” treatment, resulting in the only ethical issues being ones associated with conventional machinery. The benefits of using artificial intelligence are large enough so that the production of AI to help complete difficult tasks is both ethical and a feasible idea.
Schulze, C. (2012). Ethics and AI. Retrieved from http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/fall2012/cmsc828d/oldreportfiles/schulze1.pdf
Bryson, J. (August 2013). Ethics: Robots, AI, and society. Retrieved from http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~jjb/web/ai.html
Roberts, E. (2005). AI-ethical issues. Retrieved from http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~eroberts/courses/soco/projects/2004-05/ai/ai-ethics.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePatenting Life for Production
ReplyDeletePatenting life is unethical and unnecessary, the products are modified, not created by the scientists.
a.)Dr. Bodnor of Biology Fortified Inc. states that, "It seems obvious that a plant, animal, or even bacterium is very different than a new piece of exercise equipment or anything else that might get patented." and I can't help but agree with her. I feel that although scientists did, in a sense, create the product, the product itself occurred naturally, they just modified it.
b.) As part of many patents, farmers must discard the beans after a growing season and purchase all new beans for the next year. They can not keep or distribute these beans, and if the farmer is suspected of doing this they can be penalized under the law. I believe this is a ridiculous notion. After the seeds are given to the farmer, they are his. If anything, farmers should be applauded by conserving seeds rather than disregarding them.
c.)One of the requirements for patenting in Europe is, "An invention has to be new, inventive, capable of industrial application and reproducible in order to be patentable." genetically modified plants meet all of the requirements but one; it is not new, it is just improved.
d.) "...protection by patents is excluded for a variety regardless of the way they are produced, i.e. even if the invention regards a genetically modified variety it is excluded from patentability."(patenting law in Europe) I feel that this should be included when monitoring industries like Monsanto, the soy beans are genetically modified and can be recreated, therefore making them a variety and removing patentability.
e.)"In 1993 the Board of Appeal (BoA) was presented with a case regarding a patent for a transgenic plant that was resistant to certain herbicides due to its genetic modification. The board decided that a genetic modification would turn the group of plants into a variety."(Patenting law in Europe) Once again, I feel that this is directly related to the Monsanto product. The modified the soy bean and created their version, not their bean. This is just a version of the plant created, and the ability to be recreated and share plant similarities makes it a variety and not patentable.
SOURCES;
Bodnar, A. (2010, September 21). The history of patenting life. Retrieved from http://www.biofortified.org/2010/09/history-of-patenting-life/
Antonow, K. (2010, March 12). Patentability of life forms in europe. Retrieved from http://ictsd.org/downloads/2010/03/antonow-patentability-of-life-forms-in-europe.pdf
Hormones Added in Milk/Meat
ReplyDeleteI feel that adding numerous hormones to our food increases development and health risks in humans who ingest the milk and meat, and it is not ethical to risk human safety just to increase production.
a.)"Since it {IGF-1, a natural hormone in cattle and humans, sometimes increased for greater production} occurs in both, it is assumed that humans can absorb extra IGF-1 from milk. It is possible that higher levels of IGF-1 in the blood may be associated with an increased risk of some cancers, but no evidence has proven a link. The same connection has been made to estrogen levels and risk of breast or ovarian cancer, although again, no evidence is present at this time"(Barret, 2012). I know that just through observation, the age of female development has decreased, and children are becoming more and more developed at a younger age. I believe this is linked to increased estrogen from the products we consume everyday.
b.)" (Cow) infections are treated with antibiotics. Like in humans, high use of antibiotics can create a resistance to certain bacteria making treatment difficult. It is unknown if the antibiotics used to treat the mastitis create harm in humans"(Barret, 2012). If the effect is unknown, it means it has not been disproved. Since we would be ingesting the aftermath of the medication used in the cows, due to a long lasting half life of medication, the effects of the medicine will be directly transferred to us, and I believe we should be notified on the package of any possible medication in the product and it is unethical to keep this information from the consumer.
c.)"Many store chains and buyers will not use dairy or beef from farms using extra hormones. Some countries have banned their use because of the harm that it may do to the animals, not humans"(Barret, 2012). When we look at the over use of hormones in Agriculture, we directly think of numbers, not the animals these numbers represent. The use of hormones are effecting them as well as us, and we owe it to both ourselves and our morals to help our society and the suffering animals.
d.) "Ganmaa's topic was lunch-appropriate: the suspected role of cow's milk, cheese, and other dairy products in hormone-dependent cancers. (Those include cancers of the testes, prostate, and breast)"(Ireland, 2006). As stated, these body parts are the ones whose development seems to be stimulated more and more in each generation, and I feel that the continued addition of hormones is strongly related to this.
e.) "Among the routes of human exposure to estrogens, we are mostly concerned about cow's milk, which contains considerable amounts of female sex hormones"(Ireland, 2006). Later in the article, Ganmaa also stated that milk ingestion now accounts for 60% to 80% of our estrogen intake. This is an unfathomable and unacceptable amount, and it is incredible to me that the link between these hormone additives and over development has not been published and told to consumers, which I believe is completely immoral.
SOURCES;
Barret, A. (2012). The controversy over added hormones in meat and dairy. Retrieved from http://www.med.nyu.edu/content?ChunkIID=90869
Ireland, C. (2006, December 7). Hormones in milk can be dangerous. Retrieved from http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/12.07/11-dairy.html
Stem Cell Research/Funding/Use
ReplyDeleteI believe that funding and research using stem cells is a great benefit and we should utilize it to the fullest extent.
a.)"Human embryonic stem cell (HESC) research offers much hope for alleviating the human suffering brought on by the ravages of disease and injury"(Seigel, 2013). To me, this statement sums it all up. If we can figure out a way to prevent suffering, why not utilize it. So many people suffer from diseases that we can gain so much more knowledge about through stem cells. Just for the sake of humanity, I feel that we should fund stem cell research.
b.)"This process of disaggregating the blastocyst's cells eliminates its potential for further development. Opponents of HESC research argue that the research is morally impermissible because it involves the unjust killing of innocent human beings"(Seigel, 2013). Let's look at it this way; at this point, 5 days after conception, the 'baby' does not even have a heartbeat. It is in no way considered 'alive,' and if the parents were going to consider abortion, why not do something that will benefit society rather than just take away life.
c.)"Scientists recently succeeded in converting adult human skin cells into cells that appear to have the properties of HESCs by activating four genes in the adult cells (Takahashi et al. 2007; Yu et al. 2007). The reprogrammed cells—“induced pluripotent stem cells” (iPSCs)—could ultimately eliminate the need for HESCs"(Seigel, 2013). Due to the previous controversy, scientists have begun to find new ways to harvest stem cells. Although this new way is completely humane, there are still ethical issues. What I just have a hard time understanding is what exactly they are. Once again, no person is being harmed, but thousands will benefit.
d.)"For those who adhere to this view, extracting stem cells from a blastocyst is morally equivalent to yanking organs from a baby to save other people's lives"(Mahendra, 2013). I strongly disagree. Once again, I must argue, these things are not babies at this point. They have no heart beat, no living mannerisms whatsoever. And if parents are willing to abort their child, and just have the remains be incinerated, why can't we do the same thing and have someone benefit. I feel that this could appeal to even those who oppose abortion; we are doing it humanely and for a humane reason, thus making it ethical.
e.)" Sentient creatures make claims on us that nonsentient ones do not; beings capable of experience and consciousness make higher claims still. Human life develops by degrees"(Mahendra, 2013). Once again, this is just a restatement of my main argument; the test subjects for stem cell research are not alive. Yes, they have every possibility of advancement and becoming a person, but at that point, they are non living. If we were to say this being was alive, we may as well make discarding sperm in the toilet a moral crime as well. Sperm have every opportunity to become a living organism, yet at that current phase, they are not.
SOURCES;
Siegel, Andrew, "Ethics of Stem Cell Research", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
Mahendra Rao. Embryonic Stem Cells. In: Encyclopedia of Molecular Cell Biology and Molecular Medicine. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2013.
Altering genes to have the perfect baby or the baby of your choice is unethical and immoral.
Delete-To appreciate our children as gifts is to accept them as they come, not as objects of our design or products of our will or instruments of our ambition. (Sandel)
-If deaf parents purposely use new genetic technologies to give their child the genes for deafness, have the parents harmed the child?
-Sex selection will undoubtedly raise knotty issues as well. Societies that value boys more highly than girls, including China and India, are already out of balance; this could tip the scales even further.
-No one is certain when these techniques of enhancing already healthy children with genes to help them live longer, HIV resistant genes, or even giving the child a better looking face will be available-- and professionals protest that they're not interested in perfecting them.
-Running through the debates about designer babies, from disability to sex selection to 'designing' a baby to treat a sick sibling, is a deep mistrust of individuals. It is assumed that, in making certain choices about their children, parents will somehow harm the sense of identity and self-worth of their own children, or of others in society (Lee)
If people start altering their genes of their offspring, there could be a major increase in population, a favored sex, and a major lack of diversity. Designing your own baby is just too unethical.
Lee, Ellie. "Debating 'designer babies'." Debating 'designer babies'. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. <http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/ocrreliss7.php>.
Steinbock, Bonnie. "The Lancet iPad app: Articles in a new light." Designer babies: choosing our children's genes : The Lancet. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. <http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(08)61538-X/fulltext>.
"45 Valparaiso University Law Review 2010-2011." 45 Valparaiso University Law Review 2010-2011. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. <http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/valur45&div=47&id=&page=>.