Human Genetics example essay topic

On the approach to the second millennia, 'cloning' and the ability to manipulate and modify DNA has increased immensely. The field of genetic reproduction is creating a variety of unknown social and ethical consequences that are particular to our present time. Such consequences, although unknown now, of the manipulation of nature at such a primary biological level will have disastrous effects on the generations of the future. Cloning as a new science, concerns itself with the replication of organisms through asexual scientific method creating exact replications of the parent cell. However, cloning in the 90's has developed to the point where manipulation of human D.N. A is a very real prospect and many issues surrounding it must be addressed. These issues and the positive and negative influences on our society will be discussed herein, concentrating on selective breeding, genetic engineering, the identity of 'clones', enhanced cell growth products and production of spare body parts.

Firstly, selective breeding throughout the ages has served humanity in many ways. The origins of cloning lie in the agricultural history of humanity. Therefore the perceived gap between cloning and our nature are not so distant, as cloning has been the means by which humankind has cultivated flora for a millennia. In addition, selective breeding has been the means by which humankind has manipulated fauna for its own ends. In both cases genetic manipulation does serve humanity on many practical levels. Secondly, humankind has genetically engineered many species through selective breeding.

The potential of cloning in food production is, if not unclear, certainly unknown to most people. Selective breeding of flora and fauna has continued for eons. Only breeds of preference have been maintained as useful for humankind. The word 'clone' finds its origins in ancient Greek. 'Klone' (K reb, 1985 p. 164) defined simply in Greek means 'twig', a twig that you could place in the ground and the parent plant would be reproduced, better known now as 'propagation'. Propagation has long been under the influence of genetic engineering in the form of selective breeding.

An example of this is barking dogs, it is well known that wild dogs do not bark as such, they howl and growl, domestic dogs on the other hand have been bred to bark, hence barking dogs have been preferable to humankind as they alert the coming of strangers. Today barking dogs have become un preferable as the density of human population increases, so the requirement for dogs to warn and bark has become obsolete. Here it can be seen that the consequences of manipulating nature for our own uses are insidious if not unnecessary. Genetically engineered food products have caused a recent grand reaction of protest in Europe, as many farming communities there have refused to use imported genetically modified food crops that have been developed in America. From cows to potatoes almost all primary food markets have been affected by genetic engineering. America, endorsing such altered flora products does so in the name of conquest ing world hunger.

Although the evidence of genetically modified food crops, saving the world is scarce especially in third world countries. Ideally, the social potential for genetically modified food products is enormous as the problems of overpopulation can be addressed effectively if the access to such technology is truly made available to the people of the world. Human manipulation of fauna is a precarious field where outcomes are unknown. In more recent developments in the field of 'cloning' the case of 'Dolly', the genetically cloned sheep in the UK in 1997, evidence since of unknown problems have come to light.

Recent scientific analysis (McCall, Yahoo. 1999) has shown that the complex outcomes of the manipulation of fauna directly, are totally unpredictable. 'Dolly' was cloned three years ago and has apparently developed successfully, until close analysis has shown that in fact dolly has the genetic age and activity of a nine year old sheep. This is because she was cloned from a three year old, survived and grew for three years which totally accumulated to an increase in development which has set back the research into genetically modified fauna quite a bit. These new problems reflect the general resilience that nature asserts over any attempt to coerce the nature of the native environment. As much as they were counting on lamb, they are left with mutton.

Typically humankind have dislocated themselves as a part of nature in this age. Genetically engineered flora is not considered as an ethical issue nor is manipulating fauna, whereas when dealing with humankind we are faced with ethical dilemmas, which are only evident when considering ourselves. Humanity has classically perceived over time that it has a place in changing nature as we know it (W. Blake) "where man is not nature is barren" though unfortunately we cannot consider ourselves in the same league as all other flora and fauna although we should. If we are to work with nature we ought to aspire to become a part of nature, and be under the rule, we as a species have extended to the rest of nature. The ethical impact of the use of cloning in the medical industry creates profound dilemmas regarding the presence of the unique 'soul' or if the nurtured individual is a simple product of social reproduction.

To create replications of individuals biology for whichever end brings rise to the question of identity, where identity is applicable as in human clones or would the cloned individual seek the life of their genetic donor or would he / she assert an individual personality separate from the biology. The ethical issues surrounding the research are profound, for example as rights to life activist declare that the use of human embryos in scientific research is unacceptable and no particular unified legislation has clarified the limits or the potentials possible to explore this field. As the consequences of manipulating nature within ourselves has caused problems previously it would be most likely that a natural unknown reaction would eventually strike back at humanity and undermine all the intentions and efforts of genetic engineering and cloning. For an example the cotton growing industry has had to radiate as it has spread throughout the world, for the particular strand of plant for cotton has developed inadequacy from selective breeding that need chemical assistance to simply grow and not be destroyed by parasitical infection. Scientist at the 'Geron' institute at 'Menlo park, California' are hoping to grow spare human body parts, with the aid of 'cloning' technology (Reuters 1999, p. ).

Stem cell technology, a newly created aspect of the field, harvests the living cells of a human embryo, which when fused on a cellular level to a recipient enhance and encourage incredible growth and healing in decaying injured tissue anywhere within the body. An incredible leap into the future of medicine and health unfortunately is, at the cost of the life of human embryos. These embryos are conceived under the microscope and are grown for several days before being harvested. The ethical dilemma is obvious that is that human lives are being created and destroyed for the rich unhealthy people of the world, so they can live longer. So to gain a life, a life or several must be sacrificed. The social impact of the medical use of cloning technology in reproducing human cells is uncertain, as it has not yet evolved into a legitimate field of science, rather it is still in its infancy.

What is intended in the medical field is that human body parts maybe eventually harvested from a human clone. Although many cases have been reported of the cloning of human tissue. Scientists caution that a lot more research must be done before it might be possible to have a warehouse of human repair parts, grown to order in a petri dish. Invariably quite a number of ethical principals will be violated in the advancement of such a technical field. The clinical ethos of medical genetics can be summarise d as follows: 'Medical geneticists should be the doctors of individuals and families, not of genomes. The welfare and interests of present patients override those of the gene pool, in keeping with traditional medical ethics.

Furthermore, reducing the frequency of disease must take precedence over reducing the frequency of disease genes in the population. These two goals are not necessarily identical in the case of recessive diseases and could theoretically conflict' (Gelehrter and Collins 1990, p. 282) So with the purpose to manipulating our own DNA, would be to dissolve the un preferable genetic data which gives rise to apparent inadequacies in the human genetic stock. The ethical problem created is that of the issue of equality, in that every individual has the equal right to life, in this situation parents attain a position to control the genetic outcome of their reproduction, in other word play 'God'. Mankind is not understanding enough of one another normally, without having to eradicate the so-called 'impure' or un preferable individuals which will help maintain a certain level of humility in society.

What would happen if these individuals were non-existent in our society, who would be next? Removing the undesirable genetic components of a society has long been a method of ethnic cleansing, where cultures have been genocide d as cultural groups have been dissipated all in the name of purifying or cleansing society. An attempt to purify the gene pool of a society is as unethical as ethnic cleansing even though ethnic cleansing has played a legitimate part in nearly all coloni sing governments, it does not make it right. From a social perspective it has become a relative method of gaining social control of a foreign culture, by decimating it, and breeding out the culture for example, the indigenous Australians. Concluding, inequality is the overall outcome of the ethical debate, as our dubious interference with nature is what creates unpredictable outcomes in our environment. The question must be stated 'is it absolutely beneficial to society to exclude the un preferable genetic factor of the gene pool?' Difficulties with the species that have been long propagated or manipulated have opened opportunities for genetic impurities to occur in those species.

Would not human genetics also be under the same influences as these other species? In the effort to exclude disease and impurities, to encourage health and longevity, we may end up destroying our own species. In conclusion, issues of engineering cellular biology whether for human or fauna is immoral and unethical as it discriminates over better or worse genomes which is an outrage to the rights of all peoples. The negative influences of cloning permeate an exclusive right that will only be available to the wealthy who can pay. The illusion of purifying human genomes ought to be forgotten along with Hitler's 'pure race' of Nazi purists [N.B. ].

It is distinctly human to be diverse and that by engineering our constitution we become not unlike pro-genocidal purists asserting dominance.

Bibliography

Blake, W. (1991) 'The marriage of heaven and hell', in The enlightened mind- an anthology of Sacred Prose, ed.
S. Mitchell. New York: Harper-Collins. Collins Australian pocket dictionary of the English language (1985) ed.
W. A Krebs, Sydney: William Collins sons and co. Ltd. Knapp, D. (1999) cell scientists hope to grow human spare parts, [Online].
Available web [Accessed 22 May 1999].
Copyright Cable News Network, 1999.
McCall, W. (1999) Dolly the sheep may age prematurely [online].
Available: YAHOO news web 26 May 1999].
Reuters (1999) genetically modified food, crops, being debated [Online].
Available web [Accessed 25 April 1999].