In the recent society, Genetic engineering becomes more and more popular theme which made scientists thought deeply. Genetic engineering is a kind of laboratory technique used by scientists to change DNA living organisms. It is used to take genes and segments of DNA from one group. Like as: tomato, and put it into another groups, like apple. This might sound great, the drawback though is that it can't be stopped either, it can't be switched off. The plant no longer has a say in the expression of the new DNA, even when the constant unconscious production of the "new" product is weakening the plant's defenses or growth.

So some of scientists believe Genetic engineering got more disadvantages than advantages, others guess not like that. From my essay, I! ll layout the negative points and positive points for Genetic engineering. Side Effects, Genetic engineering is like performing heart surgery with a shovel. Scientists do not yet understand living systems completely enough to perform DNA surgery without creating mutations which could be harmful to the environment and our health. They are experimenting with very delicate, yet powerful forces of nature, without full knowledge of the repercussions. (Washington Times 1997, The Village Voice 1998).

! ^0 We see this as a multi-million dollar problem. In Europe, there is already a big problem with gene flow between wild beet and cultivated beet. Oil-seed also has close relatives and is going to cause problems in the future. One would expect that the kinds of genes that are now being engineered are going to be the ones that have a higher potentiality for causing trouble.

! +/- Environmental Hazards, Increased use of Herbicides, Scientists estimate that plants genetically engineered to be herbicide-resistant will greatly increase the amount of herbicide use. (Benbrook 1999) Farmers, knowing that their crops can tolerate the herbicides, will use them more liberally. Gene Pollution cannot be cleaned up, once genetically engineered organisms, bacteria and viruses are released into the environment it is impossible to contain or recall them. Like chemical or nuclear pollution, negative effects are irreversible. DNA is actually not well understood. 97% of human DNA scientists do not know its function.

The workings of a single cell are so complex; no one knows the whole of it. ! ^0 Genetic engineering bypasses conventional breeding by using artificially constructed parasitic genetic elements, including viruses, as vectors to carry and smuggle genes into cells. Once inside cells, these vectors slot themselves into the host genome. The insertion of foreign genes into the host genome has long been known to have many harmful and fatal effects including cancer of the organism. ! +/- Fundamental Weaknesses of the Concept, Imprecise Technology, And a Genetic Engineer moves genes from one organism to another. A gene can be cut precisely from the DNA of an organism, but the insertion into the DNA of the target organism is basically random.

As a consequence, there is a risk that it may disrupt the functioning of other genes essential to the life of that organism? (Berg elson 1998). Ecology may be damaged; the influence of a genetically engineered organism on the food chain may damage the local ecology. The new organism may compete successfully with wild relatives, causing unforeseen changes in the environment. (Metz 1997). Widespread Crop Failure, Genetic engineers intend to profit by patenting genetically engineered seeds. This means that, when a farmer plants genetically engineered seeds, all the seeds have identical genetic structure.

As a result, if a fungus, a virus, or a pest develops which can attack this particular crop, there could be widespread crop failure. (Robinson 1996) Some of scientists consider some advantage from genetic engineers. Firstly, Genetic engineering will reduce the use of herbicides. Genetic engineering develops crops with resistance to specific herbicides. For example, Roundup Ready (tm) crops survive spraying with Roundup (tm). On the one hand, this allows the farmer to use more herbicide.

On the other hand, this leads to herbicide-resistant weeds. Secondly, Genetic engineering is simply an extension of traditional crossbreeding. Crossbreeding cannot transfer genes across species barriers. Genetic engineering transfers genes between species that could never be crossbred. Also, crossbreeding lets nature manage the delicate activity of combining the DNA of the parents to form the DNA of the child.

Genetic engineering shoots the new gene into the host organism without reference to any holistic principle at all. Thirdly, Genetic engineering will help developing countries. Biotech companies patent their seeds. To protect their investment, the farmers that use the seed sign a contract which prohibits saving, reselling, or exchanging seed. The family farms of the poorer nations depend on saved seed for survival. Biotech companies also patent other people's seeds, like basmati rice, neem, and quinoa, taking advantage of indigenous knowledge and centuries of selective breeding by small farmers without giving anything in return.

The same companies, backed by the U. S. government, proposed to protect their seed patents through the terminator technology. A terminator seed will grow, but the seeds it produces are sterile. Any nation that buys such seeds will swiftly lose any vestige of agricultural self-sufficiency.

Furthermore, genetically engineered seeds are designed for agribusiness farming, not for the capabilities of the small family farms of the developing nations. How are they to buy and distribute the required chemical inputs? To sum up, from my essay, I talk about both sides of genetic engineering. For my own opinion, Genetic engineering offers more benefits than dangers. But we must consider the danger about it, so we need pay more attention on it and find the way to solve the problems.