Genetic Engineering | Teen Ink

Genetic Engineering MAG

By Anonymous

Bam! A 16-year-old takes off running at his high school track meet. He is not a quarter of the way around the track when the first of his five opponents reaches the finish line.

Now, in the 21st century, many people say the world is on the verge of a scientific revolution that brings one of the most ­controversial ideas of all time: genetic ­engineering of humans. I believe this is morally wrong, dangerous, and will lead to problems in our society.

The ethical dilemmas of human genetic engineering are what make this issue so controversial. Humans are trying to play too large a role in the universe. Many people believe that genetic engineering of humans is ­interfering with natural processes like the random selection of genes for looks and talent passed from parents to offspring. Human genetic engineering could let individuals “play God” and choose and manipulate their genes and those of their children. I believe that giving people this power goes against the basic forces of ­nature. All that is really needed is for us to accept ourselves the way we are.

The idea of a divided society in the near future is a troubling and likely consequence of human genetic engineering. Societies have always been divided by varying degrees of inequity and bias. Now, with the emergence of the genetic revolution, society entertains the prospect of a new and more serious form of segregation. One based on genotype.

The destructiveness of prejudice and discrimination is unmistakable. Imagine a world where the rich not only hold all the power, but they become superhuman. They could do things far beyond even the best abilities of normal people. Genetic engineering will bring about a rift between the upper-class citizens who are fortunate enough to afford such technology, and the lower classes who must rely only on their natural abilities. Human genetic enhancement would guarantee that families who can afford it would be able to perpetuate their social and political dominance.

Technology, or lack of enough advanced technology, is another topic of controversy for the genetic engineering of humans. It is interesting to think about the impact technology is having on the world, but is mankind ready for this kind of change?

Genetic engineering has the potential to treat and possibly cure a variety of cancers and chronic diseases, but in reality, this technology is not as promising and reliable as it may seem. Seven years after the first gene-therapy trial on humans, a complete cure for even one patient has not been produced. The technology seems to have an impressive array of benefits, but the science is still in its infancy.

It is simply part of the nature of mankind to want to be better, stronger, healthier, happier, and capable of achieving more. On the other hand, some things are better left unaltered. Change is not ­always good.



Similar Articles

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

This article has 126 comments.


on Jan. 16 2012 at 9:21 pm
someonewhoisme BRONZE, Normandy, Tennessee
3 articles 0 photos 8 comments

Favorite Quote:
"You is smart. You is kind. You is important."-Aibileen- The Help

Evolution isn't real

on Jan. 16 2012 at 2:03 pm
Viridian BRONZE, Nah, Louisiana
1 article 0 photos 22 comments

Favorite Quote:
"If there's nothing left to care about, there's nothing left to save."

I disagree. I think it would be good to cure genetic diseases. And if the government opposed regulations, then the whole rich people thing would work out. Just imagine. People could be smarter, faster, better.

on Jan. 16 2012 at 11:40 am
There is no such thing as perfect, you can only strive to make it better. But even if we could create everything exactly how we wanted, humans make mistakes. Whose to say that they wont mess up with this also?

on Dec. 3 2011 at 10:42 pm
DarkMountain BRONZE, Portland, Oregon
4 articles 0 photos 39 comments

Favorite Quote:
My eyes feel so heavy when the stars are calling me
- Join with us eternally -
I'm falling in deep trance and my powers are weakening
I'm falling in a world between dreams and reality
... I'm sailing away to undiscovered seas...
Oh time...

Genetic engineering could create a new system of segregation, and most likely would when first introduced- as you say, the rich would have it and the poor wouldn't. As technology becomes cheaper and becomes available to the masses, however, such as universal health care is in some countries (and should be in the US), this potential is removed- if everyone can have it, everyone will. Is it worth the initial conflict? And how long will that take? People fall on both sides. I enjoyed reading this very well-written article.

on Dec. 3 2011 at 9:59 pm
batondancetumble SILVER, Boone, Iowa
6 articles 0 photos 9 comments

Favorite Quote:
A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.
~Ayn Rand
Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does.
~William James
“Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery. And today? Today is a gift. That’s why we call it the present.” – B. Olatunji

This really made me think. Thanks!!

on Dec. 3 2011 at 7:46 pm
AlwaysAntlers SILVER, Kingsport, Tennessee
5 articles 0 photos 72 comments

Favorite Quote:
“Don't forget - no one else sees the world the way you do, so no one else can tell the stories that you have to tell.”
― Charles de Lint, (from his book,The Blue Girl)

And so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. You're right. Us humans have enough predjudices already, so it's not the best idea to throw in genes as well. Nice job writing this! I totally agree!

Genya GOLD said...
on Dec. 3 2011 at 12:05 pm
Genya GOLD, Bridgewater, New Jersey
10 articles 0 photos 52 comments

Favorite Quote:
"Never do anything that you wouldn't want to explain to the paramedics."-Unknown Author

'm okay with genetic engineering if its for plants, and certaina animals (to produce more food for our growing population.)

But humans are a different story. This was in a movie once, Gattica, and in it people were discriminated against because of their genes. To have genetically altered humans, is like giving steroids to athletes. I'm with you on this one!


thought said...
on Oct. 20 2011 at 2:13 am

Could you imagine, in ten years or so, A person telling their best friend, or a man telling his wife, that they were geneticly altered at birth. Would you look at that person the same way if they told you.

It isn't fair, it isn't natural, it isn't right.

(by the way great article)


on Sep. 24 2011 at 6:36 pm
lzcelloplayer BRONZE, Wayland, Massachusetts
2 articles 0 photos 31 comments

Favorite Quote:
"It seems that we all look at Nature too much, and live with her too little." ~ Oscar Wilde

This is an interesting debatable topic. Although I'm not which side I'm on, but this is also a very well written article. You did a great job on it, and this makes me think a little. Do we really want to advance our technology to change peoples genes? And is this morally right? 

Again, great job on it! :D


on Sep. 12 2011 at 7:12 pm
Rocinante SILVER, Wexford, Pennsylvania
7 articles 1 photo 386 comments
I don't think genetic engineering is right either

dave said...
on Sep. 10 2011 at 10:54 pm
there are many challenges that we are certain to face in the future global warming, wars, cancer, sexually transmitted diseases, plauges, draughts. how can we possibly face these challenges with out bettering our selves. humans have remained unevolved for many centuries now. genetic engenering is like medical technology it is plentyfull in first world countries but minimal in second and third world regions but we still try to improve it. imagine people who have not seen the blue sky for all their lives seeing after all this time. people who have not stood on their own 2 feet for all these years regrowing their missing limp. animal such as salmenders can grow their limbs over years of evolution but us as the human species havenhit a stale mate in this issue and just need a little push. do not be decived by comic book stories of wolverines metal claws and magnetos wish to destroy the earth these are but mere childrens stories this is something far greater imagine a world a couple of hundred yearsnfrom now free from hunger death poverty it all starts now genetic enginerring is the only long term solution to solve out worlds obstacles and world peace unrest. it all start now and maybe just maybe our children might see a glimpse of a perfect world.

Mr.Grinch said...
on Sep. 6 2011 at 5:32 pm
I agree completely. Us messing with the complex process it takes to simply BREATHE is like a beginner messing with a complex program. They try to "fix" something they think could be better, and end up making the whole thing a fail. And then there's the inevitable mistakes; what do we do with those? I'm personally rather scared something might happen as in House of the Scorpians; clones are made just to provide extra lungs and kidneys and hearts and such. That takes playing God to a huge level, and just plain shouldn't be done. It's immoral, and would be horrible for these clones (who need to have a working mind so that can be replaced as well.

Lilliterra said...
on Aug. 15 2011 at 6:19 pm
Please read my article on evolution, and whether it is possible, called, "What Darwin Didn't Know."

on Jul. 2 2011 at 7:11 pm
Babycakes56 SILVER, Peyton, Colorado
6 articles 0 photos 23 comments

Favorite Quote:
Things happen, things change.

Obviously genetic engineering shouldn't be used to make babies beautiful. It should only be used to make genetic diseases extinct. It should be used to allow a couple to have a kid, or even five kids, without living with the idea that they will pass on a gene that will, in no uncertain terms, eventually kill them. And no people have not been able to say, genetically engineer a person so they can save them yet. But even if the idea weren't being harshly debated, and there limits on what we can and can't do, it would still take yeaars to figure it all out. Being allowed to save people is never going to happen if we don't let it happen. We can genetically engineer foods like corn with not nearly as much controversy as with human genetic engineering. You know why? Because foods keep us alive. And with our growing population and other factors, foods we rely on are becoming extinct. So it's okay to genetically engineer our food so that we live. But it isn't okay to genetically engineer ourselves so we live? We are born the way we are because of natural selection, which sometime in the future, maybe not even for another million years, will through humans a curveball and we will eventually change. Maybe into something even greater, maybe into something even worse. Natural selection is harsh, and one way or another we will not be the same, so we can either let it happen, or make it happen. If we can save lives in the process I say make it happen.

on Jun. 10 2011 at 12:57 pm
But even if the government decides its too dangerous and decide to ban it, people will continue to experiment. And of course there's that possibility of human cloning. Another bad thing where humans have decided to "play God". Both of these equally dangerous ideas are on the brink of becoming reality.

on Jun. 10 2011 at 12:21 pm
inspiredbytheworld BRONZE, Rockford, Michigan
3 articles 5 photos 30 comments
I am in complete agreement with this article. Recently, I debated this topic with some of my peers, and found that most people are pro-genetic engineering. I believe that the point of human genetic engineering would be to someday be able to go up to a scientist and say, "I would like this gender child with this color hair and this color eyes and have them be this tall at this age." But another point to argue on this topic would be the fact that, with genetic engineering, it could be possible to manipute a child's genes so that he/she would be incredibly intellectual and incredibly athletic. Though genetic engineering could be used to help cure hereditary and such diseases, if such an experiment was possible, how come scientists have failed in their attempts to make this possible? Also, we come to the fact that, if such a thing as genetic engineering was possible on humans, the cost would be huge. The common man would not be able to afford such a thing; only the wealthy could pay for it. I would like to express my agreement about the fact that, if genetic engineering were to be possible on a human, it might not be "popular" or "cool" people who would be higher up on the social ladder, it would be those with "better genes". If genetic engineering were to be possible on a human, people would not be judged by popularity or looks, but their genes!

Hejlna BRONZE said...
on May. 19 2011 at 2:01 pm
Hejlna BRONZE, Portland, Maine
1 article 0 photos 18 comments
Same here. People should be happy with the body they have.

Dreamboat said...
on May. 19 2011 at 8:38 am
Dreamboat, Madison, Wisconsin
0 articles 0 photos 62 comments

Favorite Quote:
My name is Indigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die.

Yes, Beckon is correct. It is possible to test the child before it is born, and if it has a disease or defect they can be changed to improve their live. Also GE can only be used to a certain extent, we can only change our bodies so much. No one would be able to increase their brain speed or their running, to more then the best human so far. The main use of GE in the future would be to save lives, cure cancer, stop chronic diseases, and help people have a better life.

on May. 19 2011 at 7:07 am
Chitra.I PLATINUM, Dubai, Other
44 articles 2 photos 131 comments

Favorite Quote:
Everything makes sense if you think too much about it.

I completely agree. This is something natural, and should not be disturbed. And especially the impact on society, as you said - it will be like a holocaust all over again, except this time, it will be based on reality and not someone's crazy ideals.

on Apr. 6 2011 at 10:42 am
BandGeek BRONZE, Lyman, Maine
4 articles 0 photos 10 comments
I agree with this, I did a project on gene therapy, and instead of curing people's illnesses, it gave two people cancer and never really cured anything. It often had side effects, especially if the gene ended up in the wrong tissue