Genetic Engineering

[Azonic]

Genetic Engineering: The act of adjusting or duplicating one's genetic structure within one's DNA. Includes cloning and customizing the outcome of a child, plant, or animal.

What are your opinions on genetically engineering humans? Do you think it's right to customize your own child? Do you think it's right to clone a human?
​

Many believe that genetic engineering will help end a numerous amount of genetic diseases, like cancer. This will prevent such diseases from being passed down from one generation to another. However, it seems too good to be true... Repairing and eliminating one's susceptibility to cancer may introduce another flaw. If you replace a letter on the DNA strand, you may remove one's susceptibility to cancer but activate another flaw. So your child may not have cancer, but they might have 3 ears, or six fingers! This is because fixing a code on the DNA works in a domino effect (a gene fixed may cause another flaw, and that flaw can cause another, and another, and so on). Do you think it's worth the risk? What will happen to all the children with "accidents"?

Also onto the topic of cloning: Many support cloning because the clones can be used as test animals or servants. Others want clones to be back-ups in case an organ fails. Do you think this is humane?
~
Genetic engineering, I believe, has just far too many possibilities to ignore and just pass by. Genetically engineering plants with faster growing genes will increase the rate in which our natural plants grow, and increasing the number of foods out there. But we just shouldn't clone humans, in my opinion. :[

Anyways, the world is supposedly going forward with genetic engineering.

- Rumor has it that Korea has cloned a human (which I highly doubt).
- Numerous cloned animals have already been created, including Dolly.
- A couple in Florida purchased a cloned version of their deceased dog not too long ago for $155,000.
- A clinic in California is advertising that they will be offering services to customize the outcome of your child (e.g. If you want sandy blonde hair, you've got it!).

So what are your views? :>

 

[txteclipse]

Many support cloning because the clones can be used as test animals or servants. Others want clones to be back-ups in case an organ fails.

Welcome to prejudice in the 21st century.

 

[chanchimi]

Genetic engineering..... I did a project on this not too long ago!

I do not agree at all with human cloning, there is not a good enough reason to clone humans, the only reason that genetic engineers actually have is that the clones can be used for their organs. So that the clone would be used to cure illnesses for the original. That's wrong in my opinion, a human clone is still a person, and I don't think that bringing new life on the planet should be used for organ harvesting.

On the other hand, in terms of animal cloning, I feel it should be used within reason and balance. Cloning animals can save a animal species from dying, one day, maybe Giant Pandas won't be endangered anymore with the help of cloning! But I don't believe in transgenic animals, or altering an animal to have DNA from different animals. And of course, balance is important!

So, that's pretty much how I feel about it. But I have to say, if cloning dinosaur became possible, that would be awesome! (Of course we wouldn't want to face the dangers of a REAL Jurassic Park though! ^^; )

 

[Virtual Chatot]

I want am arm sticking out of my chest plzthx

 

[Tinhead Bruce]

Many support cloning because the clones can be used as test animals or servants.

I think you're being a little ridiculous here. I've researched cloning and other Genetic Engineering experiments, and that is crossing a line. No one one, or only deranged people will you clones as servants.

I'll Edit this or post again when I have time to put up my full opinion.

 

[Gymnotide]

If we are able to make the "people" unliving husks, then they aren't "people" anymore.
It's like growing organs in a farm. Just saying.

I want am arm sticking out of my chest plzthx

You can't modify something that's already that matured.

 

[Azonic]

If we are able to make the "people" unliving husks, then they aren't "people" anymore.
It's like growing organs in a farm. Just saying.

What? Clones are definitely people. They were just created in a different way than other "normal" humans. 8/ They have feelings emotions, and all the characteristics of a "normal" human besides the fact that they were born differently.

 

[txteclipse]

If we are able to make the "people" unliving husks, then they aren't "people" anymore.
It's like growing organs in a farm. Just saying.

What defines a "person," in your opinion?

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Hmm... I'm not into it. I think that if we did that, that a lot of people would start to have the same traits due to the "chosen aspects" of someone. I wouldn't mind it if it were something used to elimintate genetic disorders, but when you get into the realm of crap like eye colour... that's a bit too much for me.

Plus, it could end up that people who decide not to have their children genetically engineered (or do not have enough money to do so), they would be considered lower in society for being "imperfect".

Future genetisists - just leave human genetic engineering alone.

 

[Gymnotide]

What? Clones are definitely people. They were just created in a different way than other "normal" humans. 8/ They have feelings emotions, and all the characteristics of a "normal" human besides the fact that they were born differently.

Which is exactly why I proposed wiping those humanly qualities.

What defines a "person," in your opinion?

A person is the unity between human cognition, physical form, and being / existence - the mind, body and "soul". With the exception of the body, none of these can exist with the absence of another. I say "soul" vaguely because it's merely the question of "Does the being exist?" rather than a set of variables that make up the being.

"Humankind" is merely conceptual, as, no matter how you put it, people and animals are alike, except through the fact that humans are capable of "higher" understanding. If you replace the mind of a human with that of a turkey, would that being still be human? Not really. If you replaced the mind of an alligator with that of a human, would that being be human? Technically, no, but some may argue.

Hell, humans ARE animals.

The main problem I see is that people are uncomfortable meddling with forms so similar to themselves.

Hmm... I'm not into it. I think that if we did that, that a lot of people would start to have the same traits due to the "chosen aspects" of someone. I wouldn't mind it if it were something used to elimintate genetic disorders, but when you get into the realm of crap like eye colour... that's a bit too much for me.

Plus, it could end up that people who decide not to have their children genetically engineered (or do not have enough money to do so), they would be considered lower in society for being "imperfect".

Future genetisists - just leave human genetic engineering alone.

Ah, mankind's struggle against disease. Of course, with genetic engineering, the possibility of modifying these traits are opened up.
With possibility, there's exploration. With exploration, there's development. With development, there's application. Unless we outlaw superficial modifications, they're bound to happen.

- People were never perfect. They are susceptible to the environment, bacteria, prions, viruses, etc.
- Some people are already genetically "imperfect" because they carry certain genes for sickle-cell or Huntington's, etc.
- People will NEVER be perfect, but ironically are already perfect, because of mutations. While we are able to weed out the weak and breed the "stronger" individuals (resultant of genetic mutations), we are also prone to genetic mutations that destroy our bodies.

Also, so you're a fan of animal engineering. Read above on why I think humans / animals are the same.

 

[Volkner's Apprentice]

Genetic cloning humans: No.

Genetics cloning animals: varies on level of cloning, use for special circumstances/to help a species survive.

Genetics to choose what your child looks like: Meh, not for me, but if other people don't like the surprise then go for it.

Genetics to predict genetic disorders/mental disability: Yes, definitely.

 

[Azonic]

Which is exactly why I proposed wiping those humanly qualities.

Are you suggesting that we remove all clones' ability to live and feel? Because that's completely inhumane. Unless I misunderstood...

 

[BHwolfgang]

What? Clones are definitely people. They were just created in a different way than other "normal" humans. 8/ They have feelings emotions, and all the characteristics of a "normal" human besides the fact that they were born differently.

If the clone really have all that, then would they really just sit around and wait for the day that the original owner might need their heart or... something else? No, most definitely not.

I think that cloning food is the only, right way in this cloning thing. Everything is extremely delicate and one thing can lead to another.

However, if for example, you clone a corn and the genetics made the corn blue. I'll say that's kinda cool, in my opinion.

 

[Gymnotide]

Are you suggesting that we remove all clones' ability to live and feel? Because that's completely inhumane. Unless I misunderstood...

You're relating this to removing an already-living person's mind.

If they never had it, then it's not so inhumane.
It's comparable to growing bacteria culture in a lab, except on a large scale.

 

[Zet]

Genetic cloning humans: No.

Genetics cloning animals: varies on level of cloning, use for special circumstances/to help a species survive.

Genetics to choose what your child looks like: Meh, not for me, but if other people don't like the surprise then go for it.

Genetics to predict genetic disorders/mental disability: Yes, definitely.

cannibals would approve of cloning humans, they need to survive as well and why clone animals? we can live off plants and such. In my opinion I would approve of genetic engineering in every way possible, we could live longer and crap

 

[Zennerick]

If we are able to make the "people" unliving husks, then they aren't "people" anymore.
It's like growing organs in a farm. Just saying.

Clones aren't "husks" of the subject which had been cloned. A clone is an individual living organism.
A clone of a subject would live a separate life apart from the subject that had been cloned.

The cloning of a human or an animal is called [highlight]reproductive cloning[/highlight]. Scientists transfer genetic material from the nucleus of a donor adult cell to an egg whose nucleus, and thus its genetic material, has been removed. The reconstructed egg containing the DNA from a donor cell must be treated with chemicals or electric current in order to stimulate cell division. Once the cloned embryo reaches a suitable stage, it is transferred to the uterus of a female host where it continues to develop until birth.

The process of birth the clone goes through is just like the normal birth process of a human or an animal.
When born, clones have emotions, thoughts, and rights of actions just as any human or animal does.

In conclusion, you cannot simply wipe a clone's emotions, thoughts, and actions before it is born.
Have you even stopped to think if that's even logically possible or are you just rambling on about it
like a psychopathic person?

I'm not trying to be rude; I'm at least trying to make a logical point.
I didn't put more than an hour worth of research into this post
for nothing. If your going to argue this, at least show more
effort of thought in your posts.

 

[Penguin13]

Is letting a child be born with a genetic disorder, that can be fixed with genetic engineering, humane?

 

[Gymnotide]

Clones aren't "husks" of the subject which had been cloned. A clone is an individual living organism.
A clone of a subject would live a separate life apart from the subject that had been cloned.

The cloning of a human or an animal is called [highlight]reproductive cloning[/highlight]. Scientists transfer genetic material from the nucleus of a donor adult cell to an egg whose nucleus, and thus its genetic material, has been removed. The reconstructed egg containing the DNA from a donor cell must be treated with chemicals or electric current in order to stimulate cell division. Once the cloned embryo reaches a suitable stage, it is transferred to the uterus of a female host where it continues to develop until birth.

The process of birth the clone goes through is just like the normal birth process of a human or an animal.
When born, clones have emotions, thoughts, and rights of actions just as any human or animal does.

In conclusion, you cannot simply wipe a clone's emotions, thoughts, and actions before it is born.
Have you even stopped to think if that's even logically possible or are you just rambling on about it
like a psychopathic person?

I'm not trying to be rude; I'm at least trying to make a logical point.
I didn't put more than an hour worth of research into this post
for nothing. If your going to argue this, at least show more
effort of thought in your posts.

Yes, you can.

You can inhibit the passage of electricity throughout the nervous system to cause the body to be thrown into a vegetative state, then you can regulate the body to your discretion using only vital signals.

It's easier if you think about clones as bacteria. You give them nutrients on an agar plate and watch as colonies grow. You can wipe out whatever you want, sample whatever you want, transform their DNA, induce conjugation, separate and culture and overall control their lives. Disease and environmental factors affect bacteria the same way they affect humans. Metaphorically speaking, humans are just huge, specialized bacterial colonies, but our agar plates are somewhat more varied than that of bacteria's.

And hey, you. I never said it was practical with the technology we have today.

 

[s0nido]

Genetic Engineering is one thing I agree with, but cloning? No way. It's just scary and cruel. We won't be using clones as equals, that's for sure.

 

[.Ozymandias]

This is one of those issues that is incredibly frought with legal and ethical issues. In some situations, genetic counselling (changing an embyo's DNA in the lab to match an existing child) and other genetic engineering could be used for good - from treating things such as destructive cancers or to more everyday things like diabetes type 1 by growing a new pancreas for the sufferer without a chance of rejection. This would have to be totally controlled and carefully monitored, but there is always the chance this would be abused.

On this vein, the idea of someone violating this discovery by twisting it for their own gain scares me somewhat. We could be looking at a world where parents choose the eye colour of their children, the sex, the blood type, or where governments pick and choose embryo's for strength and stamina for soldiers. Note I said COULD.

This trouble with this kind of genetic modification is that the possibilities really are endless for both the positive side of it and the negative side of it.