Designer Babies!

Blog Topic: “Designer babies” is the term being used by the media to describe the future of modifying or selecting our children’s genes for desirable characteristics (medical and cosmetic). Are things getting out of hand with our research into genetic processes? In this blog investigate social and ethnical implication of this research and technologies that have been developed from it.

In the past, making babies was pretty much a hit-or-miss issue. This is not the case anymore! Parents who have access to the latest testing technology can now predetermine their baby’s sex with great accuracy. In the future, it may be possible to screen kids almost before conception for a wide range of attributes, such as characteristic traits and personality. The term, designer baby, refers to a baby whose genetic makeup has been artificially selected by genetic engineering combined with in vitro fertilisation to ensure the presence or absence of particular genes or characteristics. In the production of designer babies, there are two major concerns: Are the technologies of genetic modification and selection safe enough to be used on humans? Even if the technologies are safe, can they be morally defended?




The technology to make designer babies is only at its early stage. Advanced techniques involving in vitro fertilisation (IVF) to fertilise eggs with sperm in test tubes outside the mother's body in a laboratory reduces the chance that a child will be born with a genetic disorder. Presently, it is legally possible to carry out two types of advanced reproductive technologies on humans. The first involves choosing the type of sperm that will fertilise an egg (used to determine the sex and the genes of the baby). The second technique screens embryos for a genetic disease. This is called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Recently, scientists have made advanced research in human genome and in our ability to modify and change genes. In the future, we may be able to cure genetic diseases in embryos by replacing defective sections of DNA with healthy DNA. This is called germ line therapy and is carried out on an egg, sperm or a tiny fertilised embryo. This type of therapy has been successfully tested on animal embryos, but it is currently illegal to perform this function on humans. However, it is legal to modify the faulty genes in the cells of a grown child or an adult to cure diseases like cystic fibrosis. This is called body cell gene therapy. In the realm of science, there is a debate of whether genetic modification poses as a threat to the natural process of life.



This “design-your-own-baby” concept has been receiving objection and disapproval voices under moral and religious grounds. The idea that parents can just weed out undesirable traits and insert the genes they want is obscure. I am imaging more like a shopping centre, where parents are given a list of options with characteristic traits (like hair colour, etc) and TA-DA a baby with the specific features you want. Talk about authortarian parents! It’s the ultimate shopping experience!



A controversy facing the advancement of genetic modification technology is the cost of such procedures and the gap it creates in society. Creating designer babies is simply breeding a race of super humans with genetic enhancements. Assuming genetic enhancement becomes readily available, will it be expensive? Altering embryos is a fairly recent technology and it is still developing. Given the high cost, will the wealthy only be able to afford it? With only the wealthy being able to pay for the modification that will eliminate disease and disabilities for their children, it creates a misperception that they are “better people”. The technology is capable to design inviduals to suit social preferences such as above average intelligence, greater memory and communication skills. Not only is the prospect of future generations of "better people" a psychological concern, but concern also arises from the possibility that such groups of people might become prejudiced against one another due to a feeling of lost commonity. By agreeing to genetic modification, we are simply agreeing to heighten this existing gap between the wealthy and the poor in society.

Lastly, humans have never experienced the effects of genetic alteration. The results could have critical consequences and possibly damage the gene pool. Even if the first generation of deisgner babies remains safe, how would the children of designer babies look like? Would their genes be wrecked?



There is the other side of the debate, which argues that if nobody gets hurt and everyone has access, then genetic modification should be accepted into society. It’s simply a choice factor! If you think women have the right to control their own bodies, then they should be able to make this choice. It’s in the same category as abortion. There should be no law restricting the kind of kids people have. The parents who choose to have genetic modification are for the best interest of their children and create the best possible options for their lives. However, the concept of designer babies almost compels me to think these babies as robots rather than people.



The genetic modification of humans poses an ethical debate about the rights of the baby. On one side of this issue, people argue that the fetus should be free to not be genetically modified. Once the genetic modification of the fetus takes place then the baby is changed forever, what if the baby grows up disliking this decision? The opposing view is that the parents are own the rights to their unborn child, so they should have the option to alter their baby’s genetic code. I personally believe that genetic moderation is only accepted when the baby is genetically disordered or have health problems that were detected prior to his/her birth. I believe that parents should be only allowed preferences about health conditions that may harm the child’s life. It’s almost like dietary choices during pregnancy. There have been scientific discoveries that eating certain food will help nurture the baby’s health. In fact, this is much like the idea of genetic modification for unhealthy babies. In conclusion, I do not encourage designing babies in the sense of altering their genes for the likes of the parents.






Sources:


http://www.bionetonline.org/English/content/db_cont1.htm
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designer_baby
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/designerdebate/#ixzz0m9g68BwF
http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/regulate-designer-babies_1.jpg
http://quadri.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/dna.jpg 
http://caseclosed2.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/designer_babies.jpg 

Blogs Commented On:

http://michael15ansell.blogspot.com/2009/12/designer-babies-are-they-ethical-or.html#comment-form
http://leandromangubatexp.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-is-designer-baby.html

Humans the most invasive species?

Blog Topic: Many scientists consider humans as the most invasive species, as humans can greatly change an environment and impact living things that reside there. Are we being stewards of the world? Take a look at an issue in which human intervention has positively or negatively affected the biodiversity of our ecosystems.

Since I did not really understand what invasive species meant, I went to search up on Google, in which it gave me the answer! An invasive species is a species occurring, as a result of human activities, beyond its accepted normal distribution and which threatens valued environmental, agricultural or other social resources by the damage it causes according to the Australian department of the Environment. From seeing the first sentence of the topic, I was unhappy but this was expected. As there are many great people out there who care and do good, there are also many who don’t care. One of Norbert Wiener’s has said, “We have modified our environment so radically that we must now modify ourselves to exist in this new environment.” Since, we are treating the environment bad; we are getting karma in which it may affect our later generations and even now. Even though many people know that they are harming our environment, they usually continue doing it because they are lazy or do not have the effort to do something good that they ‘think’ will not harm them until it happens.

We, Humans consume nearly a quarter of Earth’s natural productivity. There are many people who live differently in the environments, since there are around 6.6 billion people around the world we use up a lot of land. In some places, we increase the land’s productivity measured as the amount of plant life based on the food chain by adding water and fertilizer. However, as a whole we significantly decrease the Earth’s biological productivity. Many cities occupy large land in which had been a very fertile land. We usually try to boost our quality of life, we get more than we need and we consume around 2/3 of the biological productivity that would have been available. The other species would only get 1/3 of the natural productivity. As our population increases, it is bound to strain the ecosystems even worse. Even if we tried to increase agriculture and fertilizing the land, it would just add to strain by boosting erosion and the nutrients run off creating toxic effects into the ocean.

 What does it mean to be a steward of the world? According to the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, stewardship means the conducting, supervising, or managing of something also the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s care. God has given us the environment and the world we live on. Many people are just killing the environment instead of thanking it and giving back. People usually use the environment or change the environments for their own profits, not thinking what will happen to the environment afterwards. I believe that humans are not being stewards of the world. Since they were born, they use the environment and take most of their sources from the environment to use for themselves and not giving much back. However, we must believe that we can change even though we cannot control other’s we are not powerless. People can individually examine their lifestyle and change for the better. We all have to think about our future and our future generations, our actions will affect on the generations after us greatly. We must change our attitudes and actions to achieve environmental success. Even saying this and thinking about this doesn’t change, we must actually put our powers to use.

On the other hand, there are some people who do care and is taking action to our environment like the Steward of the Earth which is a non-profit organization. Their mission statement of Stewards of the Earth is to empower, educate, and motivate individuals toward integrating their spiritual beliefs with their efforts in creating a sustainable future for humanity and all of life. They believe it is their role as living beings to live responsible caretakers and stewards of God’s creation.

Uintah Mountains, this photo illustrates what humans could lose unless they act to preserve open spaces.

Humans usually do not think of the consequences to what might happen after their actions. We do usually do not think about human wastes and what global warming is doing to our plant and animal life. If something does not affect them directly they will give little or no attention to it until it happens. However, losing biodiversity due to our actions also has frightening affects on us. This does not benefit us or biodiversity; instead it gives a greatly negative impact on both of us. If biodiversity continues to decrease, less food will be available to sustain life. Everything in biological life is interconnected just like the food chain. Species contribute great medicines for humans which may be life saving, however less species means less life saving medicines. There are probably many more species out there that we have never seen so we must protect biodiversity. We also get most of our materials which we need from biological life. Biodiversity also helps us moderate carbon production. We are taking too much of everything from our environment without taking time to understand or know what we are even doing.

Sources:

http://www.risingtidenorthamerica.org/wordpress/2007/10/14/humans-invasive-species/


http://fastingandfeasting.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/becoming-a-good-steward-of-the-earth-or-how-i-stopped-sticking-my-head-in-the-sand-and-faced-the-reality-of-global-warming/


http://main.nc.us/stewardsoftheearth/


http://www.alive.com/5328a16a2.php?subject_bread_cramb=168


http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:zzNVuUMM0oYJ:planetsave.com/blog/2008/05/19/human-interaction-with-nature-benefits-of-biodiversity/+human+interactions+with+biodiversity&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk


By: Aristo Kwok

Posted on:

http://aflametotheearthbeneath.blogspot.com/2009/09/diversity-of-living-things-why-me-worry.html?showComment=1257667757973#c772918185997590887

http://dejedj.blogspot.com/2009/09/unit-2-wellat-least-humanity-got-what.html