Category: Genetic Engineering

Introduction

In this day and age there is a lot of technological advancement taking place where new processes are being invented. Genetic Engineering is one such technological advancement and it is that set of technologies being utilized to transform genetic makeup of cells moving genes across species boundaries in an effort of producing novel organisms (McElroy 1).

As such a process is considered complex it usually involves sophisticated manipulations of genetic material as well as other biologically importance chemicals (The Hixton Group 4).

Scientists and other scientific experts have already predicted that genetic engineering is to become a huge part of peoples lives sooner or later as there are numerous benefits as well as challenges involved. One of the most controversial disadvantage of genetic engineering lies with religion.

Genetic Engineering is said to question whether man has the right to manipulate the course and laws of nature and thus is in constant collision with religion and the beliefs held by it regarding life (Wright 9). There are those scientists and individuals who also tend to believe that the introduction of genetically modified genes may lead to some irreversible effects having yet unknown consequences.

However, Genetic Engineering has numerous benefits such as prevention of diseases through early detection of organisms (Cohen 3). It can also increase diversity as regards genes where alteration of genetics could be made to produce more variant alleles (McElroy 1).

Essay

Genetic Engineering has in the recent past provoked controversy all around the world where some individuals argue that such activity is a manipulation of nature and poses great risk to humanity (The Hixton Group 5).

There are others who believe that the process offers boundless as well as unforeseen advantages to human beings, thus raising the question of just how limited the technology should be. Claims are being made that genetic engineering undermines rather than enhances the promise of humanity and this has been evidenced in a few articles regarding this subject (Wright 10).

Cohen, Eric has in an article discussed the relationship that exists between technology and society especially touching on Genetic Engineering. According to him, people seem to experience two mistakes in as far as genetic engineering is concerned where one is worrying too much too early and the other is worrying too little too late (McElroy 1).

Cohen also suggests that another problem contrary to the aforementioned is also faced where scientists are assuring people that modern day breakthrough will not result to being a nightmare of the future. A good example is given in this article where the first human embryos were being produced outside the human body in 1970s, also known as human cloning (Cohen 2). It was also declared during that time that a law concerning cloning be passed before it is too late (McElroy 1).

No one took the time to stop and reconsider the oddity involved in producing human life in the laboratory or of witnessing ones own human origins that separated procreation from sex (The Hixton Group 5). At the end of it all individuals were left to ponder on making a decision of the debt they have on the thousands of embryos now left over in coolers which creates a dilemma with no satisfying moral answer to it (Cohen 3).

In yet another article regarding Genetic Engineering, Bryant Adey featured a cartoon offering a number of comments regarding the topic. In this particular cartoon, the reader is shown a picture of Frankenstein seated in front of a plate of food and a scientist watching over him where he states that he hopes there is nothing genetically modified in the food (The Hixton Group 1).

This picture tends to speak a lot depending on how the reader may perceive it and the kind of message they may want to derive from it regarding Genetic Engineering. Personally, on looking at the picture, I could relate with a number of us who are scared of what genetically engineered food products would do to our health and bodies in general.

I am sure that majority of us tend to believe that genetically engineered food is not as nutritious as organic or natural food and since this is a day and age where people are more conscious of their health than before, natural foods are of much value.

As per my personal opinion and understanding, this particular cartoon provides evidence that genetic engineering undermines rather than enhances the promise of humanity.

Wendy McElroy also wrote an article exploring on the issues of personal responsibility in connection with scientific developments where she illustrated a story of a lesbian couple who were blessed with a deaf child (McElroy 1).

Apparently, they were delighted at the fact that their baby was deaf as they also happened to be deaf thus having selected their sperm donor on the basis of his family history of deafness (Cohen 4). In other words, the deaf lesbian couple had made an attempt of creating a major sensory defect in their child (Wright 9).

They deliberately engineered a genetic defect to their child as one of the spouses believed that deafness is a culture rather than a disability. I found this story to be rather appalling because I imagined what the child would feel towards his parents once he grew up and was mature enough to understand the choice that his parents made for him.

I also imagined the anger he would feel in future as he may have desired not to be deaf but be born normal like other children. Even though the couple may argue that they wanted a child who is just like them, their child would end up blaming them for the rest of their lives for having made such a choice for them (The Hixton Group 2).

Given the examples above, it is quite clear that genetic as well as reproductive technologies such as genetic engineering usually undermine the value of life and in the process disrupts the inherent relationship between parents and their offspring (McElroy 1). Genetic Engineering and reproductive cloning for purposes of enhancement are considered hazardous to humanity making them unjustified at the present time (Cohen 5).

The recent past saw a rapid rise in technological advances regarding robots and artificial intelligence where it was predicted that there would be the insertion of robots into the human body that would incorporate intelligent implants in the human brain in future (Wright 12).

The federal government in collaboration with scientists have also suggested replacement of people employed in areas of security, defense or surveillance as it has been predicted that an estimated 40% of armies will have been replaced with robot soldiers come the year 2020 (Cohen 6).

Despite the many advantages and benefits associated with Genetic Engineering I hold on to the fact that this process may actually harm humanity in future rather than enhance it.

There is a high possibility that due to development of new organisms through genetic engineering there can be havoc to humanitys ecological balance as the impact generated by these genetically engineered species to the environment may be unpredictable (McElroy 1).

Human beings still do not possess high knowledge of the true nature of the DNA and this may pose a challenge in future. Additionally, in this day and age where war is inevitable the science of Genetic Engineering may end up in the wrong hands and be used as a weapon of destruction (The Hixton Group 4).

Conclusion

Genetic Engineering should be treated or viewed as a double edged sword that should be used with responsibility as it can either be of benefit or a challenge to mankind.

It is quite natural for people to be afraid of change and therefore it is important to embrace change such as genetic engineering and other technological advances and pay more attention to spreading the power to alter individual minds as well as bodies to as many as possible. In other words, it is important to regulate such advanced technologies globally for them to be controlled and utilized positively.

Work Cited

Cohen, Eric. The Real Meaning of Genetics. The New Atlantis. 2005. Print.

McElroy, Wendy. Victims from Birth. 2002. Enter Stage Right. Print.

The Hixton Group. An International Consortium on Stem Cells. Ethics and Law Consensus Statement. 2006. Print.

Wright, Robert. Who Gets the Good Genes? Time. 1999. Print.

Genetic engineering is one of the most debatable problems in the modern world. The process of manipulating genes has brought scientists to important discoveries, among which is the technology of the production of new kinds of crops and plants with selected characteristics. Genetic modification also allowed the introduction of new ways of human disease treatment and prevention. However, along with many considerable advantages, specific scientific and ethical questions have arisen, calling into question whether the world is ready for genetic engineering.

This problem is one of the essential themes of Aldous Huxleys Brave New World, where biotechnology is the tool for creating flawless individuals as bricks of an ideal society in a perfect new world. In the context of a novel, genetic engineering receives negative evaluation. In this essay, with references to the current discussion among scientists as well as Huxleys novel, it will be argued that the application of genetic technologies may be beneficial as well as damaging.

The problem of the advantages and disadvantages of genetic engineering is one of the acutest problems in scientific discussion. The attention particularly turned to this question in the light of a dispute in 2018 after the method of genetic modification was first time applied to human embryos. The technology allowed the birth of twins free from HIV, while their father was infected (Rose and Brown 157). The majority of opinions were against the application of the new technology for altering the human body; many arguments were of ethical concern.

However, the question of implementing the new genetic technologies remains ambiguous. It provides help in dealing with health issues and improving agricultural products, and in the future may open the horizons for new possibilities (Zhang et al. 119). Moreover, clinic use of genetic technologies allows to improve the treatment of many health problems; the example of it is supplying diabetes patients with genetically modified insulin.

In the context of this discussion, Brave New World continues to be the most frequently referenced work of fiction in the genome-editing discourse (So 216). The novel describes the world seven centuries after the twentieth century, where the World States motto is Community, Identity, Stability (Huxley 1). The children are not delivered in a usual way but produced in laboratories using various techniques, and later segregated into five castes of different levels, from the top Alpha to the bottom Epsilon.

Thus, everybody is determined to play a particular role in the social system. What man has joined, nature is powerless to put asunder (Huxley 21); such a declaration of human power over nature is the new belief of the world where religion and art are eradicated. Society is assumed to be happy, however, instead of utopic brave new world, Huxleys novel appears to be its straight dystopic opposite. It presents the drama of humans who are not able to fit into the distilled ideal environment. Genetic engineering, thus, comes to be a part of this negative picture and manifests, instead of progress, one of the most significant human misconceptions.

However, it seems that Brave New World is often misrepresented as being about the direct genetic engineering of humans (So 318). Indeed, the problem appears only as one aspect of Huxleys model of the world, the other being the philosophy of consumption and self-indulgence. As it is argued in the novel, every discovery in pure science is potentially subversive (Huxley 198). It demonstrates that even in the scientifically constructed world, science is sometimes treated as a possible enemy.

To conclude, it should be argued that, while thinking about the danger, one has not to deny the obvious benefits of genetic engineering. The current discussion is aware of the ambiguous character of this issue. Scientists often refer to Huxleys Brave New World as a possible adverse scenario of the future, which has to be avoided. Thinking about the progress as a result of new technology should always be aligned with considering diverse aspects of its implication.

Works Cited

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. Random House, 2008.

Rose, Bruce I., and Samuel Brown. Genetically Modified Babies and a First Application of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR-Cas9). Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 134, no. 1, 2019, pp. 157162.

So, Derek. The Use and Misuse of Brave New World in the CRISPR Debate. The CRISPR Journal, vol 2, no. 5, 2019, pp. 316323.

Zhang, Chen, et al. Genetically modified foods: A critical review of their promise and problems. Food Science and Human Wellness, vol. 5, no. 3, 2016, pp. 116-123.

When I think of genetic engineering, I say to myself “Wow a way to get exactly what I want and how I want it.” Genetic engineering is a topic of opinion, While some people may disagree with the procedure for most it is seen as the best opportunity they can ever be given. Genetic engineering also known as gene editing, is when DNA is inserted, deleted, modified, or replaced in the genome of a living organism. I support genetic engineering, as well as the opportunities and enhancements that go along with it. Although the procedure comes with a lot of “what ifs”, in a certain set of eyes the opportunities outweigh those “what ifs.” The possibility of making sure your child is free from all or any inherited diseases is astonishing. Being able to include your desired enhancements. While there are some people who feel that tampering with the DNA of human beings or other organisms is meddling with Mother Nature. Others see it as a sign of progress and an opportunity to make the world and the lives of humans as well as animals better.

To start off, back in the early 1970s Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen, constructed a way to function organisms that combined and replicated genetic information from different species. Their experiments greatly impacted DNA recombinant engineering in medicine and other pharmaceutical advantages. Boyer and Cohen, who are both biochemists, recognized the corresponding nature of their work in 1972. Cohen’s research involved plasmids which are the non-chromosomal, circular units of DNA found in bacteria. Boyer was working on restriction enzymes, produced by bacteria to counter invalid viral organisms known as bacteriophages. Which is a virus that parasitizes a bacterium by infecting it and reproducing inside it. Later Boyer and Cohen both combined their discoveries. Which allowed them to generate products more rapidly.

The main advantage of genetic engineering is being able to remove sicknesses and diseases. Such as Huntington’s disease, sickle-cell anemia, Tay-Sachs, cystic fibrosis, ataxia, muscular dystrophy, hemophilia, and albinism. The list continues to grow as more technology growth increases as the years go on. Genetic editing can ensure those tragic legacies do not carry to offspring. Being able to be in control of the well-being of your unborn child should be seen as a gift. The development of CRISPR, now allows scientists to program a protein to change specific sequences of DNA within a cell, then gives them the ability to edit the human genome. With CRISPR scientists can be able to remove the bad parts of the genome and basically patch up any imperfections.

Through the creation of CRISPR not only are we able to prevent and treat the spread of diseases as well as the improvement of crops. CRISPR stands for clusters of regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, it is a specialized region of DNA with two distinct characteristics, repeats and spacers. The repeated nucleotides are the building blocks of DNA, the spacers are bits of DNA that are distributed among the repeated sequences. In the case of bacterial infection, the spacers are taken from viruses that previously attacked the organism. It’s able to remember where the infection came from, which enables bacteria to recognize the viruses and fight off future attacks. There have been cases over the past years where the development of CRISPR played a large part. Which involved a few of those listed diseases that are able to be removed because of the advancements of CRISPR.

Besides having genetic engineering to be able to remove diseases, you can also pick and choose any and or all of the features/characteristics of your child. Some might not see that as an advantage or even a necessity but others see it as a dream come true. There are several scenarios where parents or a parent might want a specific type of gender for a certain reason. As well as maybe they’ll want a certain type of trait to be ensured that will carry down to their child. That might not be considered everyone’s cup of tea but having that opportunity there is always seen to have benefits rather than hazards.

When it comes to sports or physical attributes, people would tend to lean toward performance-enhancing drugs. Also known as erythropoietin, steroids, growth hormones, and such. If being born with a specific type of physical enhancement such as strength, speed, endurance, or all of the above. There would be no need to possibly want to indulge in such drugs, even though societal issues will always have to be considered. When it comes to competitive sports, it is always frowned upon as well as violates “anti-doping rules.” At least we can be able to provide that said child with an advantage maybe others didn’t have the chance to receive.

Trait selection and enhancement in embryos raise moral issues involving both individuals and society.

Genetically Modified Organisms, also known as Genetically Engineered Foods, are foods created from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA using genetic engineering procedures. These practices create new traits and have greater control over others when compared to previous methods, like selective breeding and mutation breeding. In 1996 Genetically Modified Organisms were introduced to the market. Since then, tons of people have eaten GMOs in various foods, such as soybeans, beef, dairy products, corn, sugar, etc. GMOs could be good and sometimes could harm people in society. Here is why. Even though the Government and the GMO industry say that these new crops are environmentally safe and that there is no nutritious difference between GMOs and conservative crops, GMOs should most definitely be labeled on food products because specific genetically modified organisms may be harmful and people have every right to know what is in their food.

The possible benefits of genetically modified foods are that it has a lot of nutrition in them, they taste better, people could spend less money producing more food, the use of pesticides and herbicides is less, they protect the soil, etc. In addition, consumers have the right to know what is in their food, especially if they have children and the health and environmental concerns have been raised on the foods. Labeling of GMOs will allow consumers to identify and have a clear view of the food products that may cause problems with their health. Majority of Americans support labeling of GMO foods, but that may have a huge effect on food prices. “At least 22 countries have announced plans to institute some form of mandatory labeling (Phillips and McNeill, 2000). The United States could follow their lead in handling the logistics of product separation” (P. Byrne, no.9.371). Due to religious and ethical reasons, many Americans would want to avoid GMO foods, especially the ones that contain animal products, including their DNA.

The problems that would be caused by labeling GMO foods would be that labeling the GMO foods would imply a warning about the health effects and consumers would not want to buy the food products anymore. Labeling of GMO foods to fulfill the needs of some consumers would also enforce a cost on all consumers. Consumers who would want to buy non-GMO foods would then want to purchase certified organic foods, which by definition cannot be produced with GMO ingredients. That would most definitely have a huge effect on food prices because then more Americans would want to purchase certified organic foods as well. Consumers have a tendency to have enough knowledge when looking at labels. When they see “contains GMO ingredients” they will put the food product back on the shelf and purchase the organic food choice. They may not be a better choice either, but compared to GMO foods consumers would most definitely purchase them. Organic foods are not proven to be better for your health or the environment either. In conclusion, labeling GMO foods has huge effects on the poor. GMO ingredients are supposed to be unsafe when in reality that may not be true. Poor people will become insecure about food and end up spending money on fast food because labels scare them away, causing them to spend money that they already do not have.

Furthermore, the most important reason why labeling of GMO foods impacted me as a researcher is because I am concerned about my health and others’ as well. We should have the right to know what we are eating or how many GMOs we are consuming in a day. This will allow me as well as others to have knowledge and to be able to choose which food product we want in our lives as well as our children. Labeling of GMOs will allow producers and consumers to have a stronger relationship in the long run. A stronger relationship between producers and consumers will allow the trust of farmers to continue to grow crops and sell them to the market. Also, producers would be able to make their way into the market. Consumers will most definitely be willing to pay higher prices for food products so industries will benefit from that and new players will develop. Throughout my research on genetically modified organisms, I discovered that the division between the government, public, and GM companies has the most debate when it comes to selling products. But in my opinion, I would want my food to be labeled also due to the damage that it could cause to the body.

In conclusion, even though GMOs could be good in such ways, they should still be labeled so that consumers can decide for themselves if they want to eat them or not. As stated before, GMOs have a negative effect on all aspects of life; not just for health reasons but also for economic reasons. Today the United States still has very restricted regulations for the production of GMO food products and has no clear labeling or plans for the distribution and use of these products. This way of life is still sort of new, and people have not seen the true effects that these types of foods have on our bodies and lifestyles and what it has in store for our future. In my opinion, I would want to know what is contained in my food products as well. My health is very important to me.

Works Cited

• Byrne, P. “Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods.” Food and Nutrition Series, Colorado State University, 2010,

The article “Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods”: Food and Nutrition Series is not peer-reviewed, but has a great credible party which is Colorado State University. The purpose of this article is to determine whether or not to require labeling of genetically engineered foods. This is an ongoing debate over the risks and benefits of food crops produced using biotechnology. The relevance of this article is how labeling GMO foods can benefit and protect Americans and how it could affect food prices. The audience of this article is intended to be Americans who are concerned about their health and the companies that would be affected by food prices. I believe this article also has authority because it is a credible source provided by another university.

• Moran, Lily. “GMO Foods Have Not Proven Themselves Safe. Here’s What to Do about It.” Newport Natural Health, Scholarly Article, 15 Oct. 2019,

This article describes the pros and cons of GMOs. Moran uses GMO manufacturers and unbiased research to clarify some of the pros and cons. In this article, the author revealed the ugly truth about GMOs: GMOs are way more general and harmful than we thought. Additionally, most Americans have been eating GMOs for years without even knowing it. Moran then describes the main point that GMOs can cause an increased risk of food allergies. Morans’ other main argument is that GMOs are not safe. This article is a reliable source due to its comparing and contrasting of GMOs. The author effectively uses a lot of other research to prove why GMOs are safe and not safe. I agree with the research on this source because GMOs are most definitely harming people and many have no clue about it.

• Goldman, Karen A. ‘Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods: Legal and Scientific Issues.’ Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 12.3 (2000): 717-60.

Karen Goldman is the main key player in this article. This article focuses on the procedures governing GMOs to see if the procedures remain relevant and applicable to the current state of GMO foods. She concludes that the FDA’s labeling requirements are not adequate, because they do not apply to GMO foods. She is an authority because she included a lot of convenient information and perceptions about the spread of GMO foods and how they help the markets. This research provided a good background for my study. This article is mainly for people who would consider the government to start labeling GMO food products for their safety. Also, this source helps make the case that GMO foods are not considered suitable because many of those engaging in the discourse surrounding GMO foods are outdated. This article is not peer-reviewed, but it was published by Karen Goldman.

• Weaver, S.A. & Morris, M.C. J Agric Environ Ethics (2005) 18: 157.

The major players in this article are Michael C. Morris and Sean A. Weaver. This article is peer-reviewed. This article presented scientific research on the importance of human health, animal welfare, and environmental risks associated with genetic modification. They’re an authority because they want to inform people about the risks related to transgenic material which include fears about resistance and non-target effects of crops expressing Bt toxins, penalties of the use of herbicides associated with genetically modified plants, and the transfer of genes from genetically modified crops through vertical and horizontal gene transfer. The article has a serious tone. This article is peer-reviewed. I think this article has authority because it provides people with information on the risks associated with genetic modification.

Genetically engineered organisms could have a massive impact on humans. They can do almost anything. They could solve thousands of problems that plague the human race. Genetically modified organisms will benefit the human race in innumerable ways. They will likely be the cure for cancer, an inevitable food crisis, and the organ crisis. They can produce insulin and will make transplants more available and much easier.

Genetic modification or genetic engineering is the altering of the genetic material in a given organism. Any organism that has been changed genetically, is genetically modified. The Food and Drug Administration defines genetic engineering as “the biotechnical methods used by scientists to directly manipulate an organism’s genome”. Organisms that have been selectively bred are not classified as GMOs under this definition. Any animals given antibiotics or hormone supplements do not fall under the GMO category.

Viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals can be altered. When studying the immune system of bacteria, scientists discovered a family DNA sequences. They saw that bacteria, and specifically this family of DNA sequences, could take DNA from an attacking virus or bacterium and insert it into themselves. This made the bacteria stronger and more able to survive. This family of sequences called clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, or CRISPR for short has the potential to change the world for the better. CRISPR paired with an enzyme, called Cas 9, has the ability to precisely alter the DNA sequence of an organism (Vidyasagar).

CRISPR and Cas 9 are essentially a pair of molecular scissors. They can be inserted into a cell and target a single DNA sequence or trait. When the CRISPR gets to the specified trait, the Cas 9 enzyme cuts it from the rest of the sequence (Vidyasagar). Once that happens two things can occur: the CRISPR and Cas 9 duo will stop or the duo can insert a new gene or trait into the organism. If the CRISPR and Cas 9 pair stop after cutting the gene, the cell will try to repair it. This usually goes poorly and deactivates the gene (Vidyasagar).

The main reasons for engineering a plant are for an increase in yield harvested, resistance to diseases and pests, or nutritional value in animal feed (McDivitt). Current commercially harvested crops have not been genetically altered to directly increase yield (Norero, ‘GMO Crops Have Increased Yields’). They have not been modified to increase the number of grains or pods, the size of grains, or the size of the plant. They have been genetically changed to become more resistant to herbicides, pesticides, and insects (McDivitt). By reducing the number of crops lost to disease, pests, or drought, yields have increased.

According to a paper by Mark W. Rosegrant and his associates, on 2020 global food production, the average cereal growth rate has declined almost everywhere in the world (Rosegrant). Yield growth rates have fallen roughly 1.5% per hectare from 1967 to 1997 and projected to fall another 2% before 2020 (Rosegrant). From 1982 to 2012, over 24 million acres of farmland were converted to developed land. In 2012, there were 914 million acres of farmland in the United States. This has fallen to 900 million acres in 2017 (‘Farmland Information Center’). Farmland acres are projected to decrease in the future.

Earth’s current population is 7.7 billion people. That number is expected to skyrocket to over 9.8 billion by 2050 and even higher to 11 billion in 2100 (‘Growing World Population’). The world’s farmers are going to be responsible for producing enough food for each one of those people. Current food production can support 10 billion people. An ever-growing population paired with a decrease in farmland will create a food shortage before the end of the century. This will be exacerbated by the fact that food is becoming less nutritious. Reckless farming practices have led to poorer soils and therefore poorer nutritional value in crops (Scheer). People will have to eat more food to attain a healthy requirement for nutrients.

Farmers will have to look for alternative methods to produce more food. One of these methods is planting genetically engineered crops designed to yield more. Most farmers are already planting genetically engineered crops to better control pests and diseases (Norero, ‘GMO Safety Endorsement’). Planting GMOs can help farmers produce more crops at the same or an even lower price. With GMOs, farmers could plant more nutritious crops. This, in turn, will resolve the food nutrition crisis and facilitate the elimination of malnutrition.

Using genetic engineering, genetic diseases could be a thing of the past. Currently, scientists are engineering immune cells or T cells, to find and kill cancer cells. The T cells see the cancerous cells as a virus, like the common cold, and kills them (Bennett). Genetic alteration could be used to cure numerous diseases including Huntington’s disease, AIDS, cystic fibrosis, and even genetic blindness (Bennett). However, more research and funding are needed for each project.

There are many other ways genetic engineering, and CRISPR especially could save lives. Scientists have been able to make mosquitoes resistant to malaria. Malaria ravages over 50% of the world every year. With 300 million cases and nearly 500,000 deaths every year, malaria is the leading cause of death in many developing countries (‘Impact of Malaria’). Mosquitoes also carry several other diseases detrimental to humans and other animals. Scientists have engineered mosquitoes without the ability to reproduce (Doubek). These mosquitoes also have an altered gene that makes them glow fluorescent. This is to help further the decline in the mosquito population.

Over 100,000 people are on an organ transplant list. However, very few people get these transplants and 8,000 people die every year while waiting for a transplant (Mullin). Very few people die in a way that their organs can be transplanted, so scientists are looking for other sources of organs. Humans and pigs have very similar anatomies (Miller, Ioannou). They share the same number of organs and size of organs. Pig hearts are slightly larger than a human’s and pig kidneys are slightly smaller than a human’s (Miller).

The problem with transplants is that the human body rejects anything that doesn’t match its DNA. Organ transplantees have to take immune system suppression drugs so their body does reject the transplant. CRISPR could make implants or transplants safer by altering the DNA in the organ to reduce the risk of rejection (Schmidt). If patients do not have to take immune system suppression drugs, they could live healthier, happier lives without having to worry about viruses like the common cold.

Some organs carry diseases, especially organs from pigs. CRISPR could eliminate these diseases present in the organs. CRISPR could eliminate these diseases before they even get transplanted into a human. Porcine endogenous retroviruses, or PERVs, are common in pig DNA and can be passed on during transplants (Mullin). CRISPR can be used to rid pig embryos of disease before birth, these embryos are then implanted into female pigs (Mullin). The virus-free pigs are birthed and kept in sterile housing until they have matured to a point where their organs can be harvested and transplanted into humans.

Insulin allows the human body to process sugar. Some people’s bodies cannot or do not produce enough insulin for them to survive. These people are called diabetics. There are over 400 million diabetics worldwide (‘Diabetes Prevalence’). The price of insulin can vary from $25 to over $100 per vial. Genetically engineering can lower this cost and even produce a surplus of insulin. Scientists have already produced insulin from bacteria. Normally, insulin is collected from the pancreas of cows or pigs. With bacteria, the insulin-producing gene is inserted into the DNA of the bacterium. The bacterium produces insulin which is then collected from fermentation tanks (‘How Do They Make Insulin from Recombinant DNA?’).

Before the end of the century, there will be a food crisis. Food nutrition has dropped dramatically over just 30 years. Hundreds of diseases ravage the human population. The price of insulin is at an all-time high and is not looking to decrease. Currently, there is an organ shortage around the world. If the human race wishes to survive and thrive throughout the next millennia, humans must turn to genetically modified organisms to survive. GMOs can make human lives healthier, happier, longer, and even cheaper.

Viruses are the most common biological agents in the sea typically numbering 10 billion per litre. They mostly infect all organism, can undergo rapid decay and replenishment and influence many biogeochemical and ecological process including nutrient cycling, system respiration, and particle size distribution and sinking rates, bacterial and algal biodiversity and species distribution, algal bloom control, dimethyl sulphide formation and genetic transfer (Fuhrman, 1999). Although there was persuasive evidence in the late 1970’s that viruses are abundant in the sea it was not until a decade later that quantitative estimates revealed that each milliliter of seawater contains millions of these particle, most of the first estimates of abundance were based on electron microscopy of virus particles that had been removed and concentrated from sea water (Suttle, 2007).

The abundance of viruses exeeds that of bacteria and archea by approximately 15 times fold. However because of their extremely small size, virus are only approximately 5% of the prokaryotic biomass within any environment, the total viral abundance generally varies along with the prokaryotic abundance and productivity. Consequently, in the oceans, viral abundance decreases farther offshore and deeper in the water column.

Viruses infecting specific marine organism have been studied for several decades initially from studies of pure cultures that focused on organisms rather than ecological system; but viruses were not regarded as quantitatively important compliments of marine food webs until they were shown by direct counts to be highly abundant. The small size of viruses renders them invisible to ordinary light microscopy and although they can be visualized by transmission in electron microscopy (TEM), special procedures are required to concentrate them from seawaters.

The ultracentrifugation and TEM method that is comonly used to collect and visualize marine viruses and prokaryotes is adapted only slightly from the original technique published in 1949 ——- had this technique been applied then to natural waters, the discovery of highly abundant prokaryotes and viruses in aquatic habitats would have been pushed forward by about 25 and 40 years respectively.

The first reports of high viral abundance, exceeding the typical bacterial abundance of 10^9 per litre awakened interest in this topic. Many subsequent studies, have shown that viruses are consistently the most abundant biological entities in the sea – near shore and off shore, tropical to popol, sea surfaces to sea floor, and in sea ice and sediment pure water. Viral abundance are typically 10^10 per litre in surface waters in about 5 — 25 times the bacterial abundance and follow the same general abundance patterns as bacteria. This patterns include a decrease of about1 order of magnitude between rich coastal waters and oligotrophic (nutrient poor) open ocean, a decrease of between 5 and 10 fold from the euphoric zone to the upper midwaters and a further decrease several — fold to abyssal depths.

Viral abundances are dynamic being particularly responsive to changes in ecological conditions such as algal blooms, this provides strong evidence are active member of the community rather than inert particles.

Pronounced fluctuations in virus abundance over timescales of minutes to hours maybe indicative of synchronized host – cell lysis and rapid degration of a large portion of progeny viruses. On scales of hundreds of kilometers, viruses abundance is usually strongly correlated to bacterial abundance and less so to particulate chlorophyll indicating that most marine viruses infects bacteria.

Introduction

In this day and age there is a lot of technological advancement taking place where new processes are being invented. Genetic Engineering is one such technological advancement and it is that set of technologies being utilized to transform genetic makeup of cells moving genes across species boundaries in an effort of producing novel organisms (McElroy 1).

As such a process is considered complex it usually involves sophisticated manipulations of genetic material as well as other biologically importance chemicals (The Hixton Group 4).

Scientists and other scientific experts have already predicted that genetic engineering is to become a huge part of people’s lives sooner or later as there are numerous benefits as well as challenges involved. One of the most controversial disadvantage of genetic engineering lies with religion.

Genetic Engineering is said to question whether man has the right to manipulate the course and laws of nature and thus is in constant collision with religion and the beliefs held by it regarding life (Wright 9). There are those scientists and individuals who also tend to believe that the introduction of genetically modified genes may lead to some irreversible effects having yet unknown consequences.

However, Genetic Engineering has numerous benefits such as prevention of diseases through early detection of organisms (Cohen 3). It can also increase diversity as regards genes where alteration of genetics could be made to produce more variant alleles (McElroy 1).

Essay

Genetic Engineering has in the recent past provoked controversy all around the world where some individuals argue that such activity is a manipulation of nature and poses great risk to humanity (The Hixton Group 5).

There are others who believe that the process offers boundless as well as unforeseen advantages to human beings, thus raising the question of just how limited the technology should be. Claims are being made that genetic engineering undermines rather than enhances the promise of humanity and this has been evidenced in a few articles regarding this subject (Wright 10).

Cohen, Eric has in an article discussed the relationship that exists between technology and society especially touching on Genetic Engineering. According to him, people seem to experience two mistakes in as far as genetic engineering is concerned where one is worrying too much too early and the other is worrying too little too late (McElroy 1).

Cohen also suggests that another problem contrary to the aforementioned is also faced where scientists are assuring people that modern day breakthrough will not result to being a nightmare of the future. A good example is given in this article where the first human embryos were being produced outside the human body in 1970s, also known as human cloning (Cohen 2). It was also declared during that time that a law concerning cloning be passed before it is too late (McElroy 1).

No one took the time to stop and reconsider the oddity involved in producing human life in the laboratory or of witnessing one’s own human origins that separated procreation from sex (The Hixton Group 5). At the end of it all individuals were left to ponder on making a decision of the debt they have on the thousands of embryos now left over in coolers which creates a dilemma with no satisfying moral answer to it (Cohen 3).

In yet another article regarding Genetic Engineering, Bryant Adey featured a cartoon offering a number of comments regarding the topic. In this particular cartoon, the reader is shown a picture of Frankenstein seated in front of a plate of food and a scientist watching over him where he states that he hopes there is nothing genetically modified in the food (The Hixton Group 1).

This picture tends to speak a lot depending on how the reader may perceive it and the kind of message they may want to derive from it regarding Genetic Engineering. Personally, on looking at the picture, I could relate with a number of us who are scared of what genetically engineered food products would do to our health and bodies in general.

I am sure that majority of us tend to believe that genetically engineered food is not as nutritious as organic or natural food and since this is a day and age where people are more conscious of their health than before, natural foods are of much value.

As per my personal opinion and understanding, this particular cartoon provides evidence that genetic engineering undermines rather than enhances the promise of humanity.

Wendy McElroy also wrote an article exploring on the issues of personal responsibility in connection with scientific developments where she illustrated a story of a lesbian couple who were blessed with a deaf child (McElroy 1).

Apparently, they were delighted at the fact that their baby was deaf as they also happened to be deaf thus having selected their sperm donor on the basis of his family history of deafness (Cohen 4). In other words, the deaf lesbian couple had made an attempt of creating a major sensory defect in their child (Wright 9).

They deliberately engineered a genetic defect to their child as one of the spouses believed that deafness is a culture rather than a disability. I found this story to be rather appalling because I imagined what the child would feel towards his parents once he grew up and was mature enough to understand the choice that his parents made for him.

I also imagined the anger he would feel in future as he may have desired not to be deaf but be born normal like other children. Even though the couple may argue that they wanted a child who is just like them, their child would end up blaming them for the rest of their lives for having made such a choice for them (The Hixton Group 2).

Given the examples above, it is quite clear that genetic as well as reproductive technologies such as genetic engineering usually undermine the value of life and in the process disrupts the inherent relationship between parents and their offspring (McElroy 1). Genetic Engineering and reproductive cloning for purposes of enhancement are considered hazardous to humanity making them unjustified at the present time (Cohen 5).

The recent past saw a rapid rise in technological advances regarding robots and artificial intelligence where it was predicted that there would be the insertion of robots into the human body that would incorporate intelligent implants in the human brain in future (Wright 12).

The federal government in collaboration with scientists have also suggested replacement of people employed in areas of security, defense or surveillance as it has been predicted that an estimated 40% of armies will have been replaced with robot soldiers come the year 2020 (Cohen 6).

Despite the many advantages and benefits associated with Genetic Engineering I hold on to the fact that this process may actually harm humanity in future rather than enhance it.

There is a high possibility that due to development of new organisms through genetic engineering there can be havoc to humanity’s ecological balance as the impact generated by these genetically engineered species to the environment may be unpredictable (McElroy 1).

Human beings still do not possess high knowledge of the true nature of the DNA and this may pose a challenge in future. Additionally, in this day and age where war is inevitable the science of Genetic Engineering may end up in the wrong hands and be used as a weapon of destruction (The Hixton Group 4).

Conclusion

Genetic Engineering should be treated or viewed as a double edged sword that should be used with responsibility as it can either be of benefit or a challenge to mankind.

It is quite natural for people to be afraid of change and therefore it is important to embrace change such as genetic engineering and other technological advances and pay more attention to spreading the power to alter individual minds as well as bodies to as many as possible. In other words, it is important to regulate such advanced technologies globally for them to be controlled and utilized positively.

Work Cited

Cohen, Eric. “The Real Meaning of Genetics.” The New Atlantis. 2005. Print.

McElroy, Wendy. “Victims from Birth.” 2002. Enter Stage Right. Print.

The Hixton Group. “An International Consortium on Stem Cells.” Ethics and Law Consensus Statement. 2006. Print.

Wright, Robert. “Who Gets the Good Genes?” Time. 1999. Print.

Introduction

Scientists around the globe are debating on the better ways in which they can research and advance gene-editing technology. Genetic engineering is the precise form of gene-editing, whereby professionals use bacteria enzymes to locate genes in the DNA, subsequently replacing or deleting them. According to Gyngell et al., scientists use genetic modification as the primary option for modifying the human embryos to fit into the specific outlines and anticipated qualities which the parents expect their infant to obtain (499). Globally, the practice is seen as a critical strategy towards eradicating the devastating genes in different families and commencing to emulate excellent and discernible traits. Genes affiliated with specific hereditary and chronic ailments are mutated by this technology. Although some individuals oppose the genetic engineering approach, the technology is important because it leads to curing genetic diseases, delays aging, enhances genetic lottery, makes disease treatment less costly, and reduces infertility rates among people.

Main text

As mentioned above, genetic engineering enhances the ease of curing genetic diseases. Gyngell et al. opine that genetic editing aids in disease treatment, including thalassemia and cystic fibrosis (501). There is no medicine or other treatment option for individuals who are suffering from these conditions. The selection of healthy fetuses or embryos through genetic testing is a critical way of reducing these diseases from affecting the subsequent generation. Families lineages with such conditions have high chances of lowering genetic disorders, in general, by embracing the genetic modification practice. The gene alteration strategy enables replacing the specific unwanted genes with the new ones, which are more resistant and freer of the particular ailment, hence an essential assurance of a healthy generation in the future. Moreover, Gyngell et al. add that the genetic engineering approach guarantees children born in the subsequent cohorts are healthy and do not have the illnesses evident in the current family members (507). For instance, if infants are subjected to genetic interchange, there are high chances that their children might naturally not have the conditions. Therefore, genetic engineering augments the ease of treating genetic diseases in different families.

Additionally, genetic engineering is vital because it reduces the rate of aging. De Miguel Beriain alludes that hereditary modification slows the actual frequency at which people get old. The practice makes individuals resistant to diseases, which have high chances to develop among elderly adults in society. De Miguel Beriain further mentions that thousands of people die due to various age-related diseases. For instance, cardiovascular diseases mostly affect older adults, causing deaths in different countries throughout the world. Arguably, the ideology of gene editing has the potential of arresting or delaying aging as it has been achieved in mice (Baylis and McLeod 310). It has the capacity of allowing human beings to live twice as long without experiencing ordeals of impotence, frailty, and memory loss. In other words, the genomic alteration practice allows individuals to live long because their chances of succumbing are meager. What kills elderly people in society is old-age-related diseases. If it were not for the archaic conditions, such as cancer, individuals could have lived for more years than the present human lifespan. Thus, genetic engineering is essential because it increases people’s life expectancy by slowing aging.

Significantly, genetic modification is pivotal because it enhances the genetic lottery. Rose et al. assert that the genomic alteration ensures that only the excellent traits can be transferred from one generation to another among family members (254). It applies the selection model in choosing the exact characteristics which are discernible. The approach is effective because of the egalitarian reasons, that is, correct and reduce the levels of natural inequality. For instance, genetic engineering ensures that the worst-off people in the community, including those born lame, are retrieved from these gradual problems. It guarantees that the genes which lead to the different mental and physical difficulties are deleted and replaced by the more effective ones, enhancing the ease of individuals living in this world comfortably. The approach ensures that people are independent, whereby they do everything by themselves and never depend on others for assistance. Hereditary adjustment equally secures that children get only the best traits of both parents, hence being intelligent. Therefore, it is prudent to note that genetic engineering is important, considering that it ensures a genetic lottery.

Noteworthy, genetic alteration is critical because it makes the treatment of diseases less costly. According to Rose et al., human embryo gene editing can better comprehend different diseases and authentic medication procedures which do not modify humans (265). Notably, the gene-edited embryonic lines of the stem cell, which protect and enhance the body’s immunity to fight against diseases, can help understand their actual origins of them. Liu et al. add that other edited cells of the stem can critically help treat specific illnesses (5). Individuals can have distinct blood cells which kill and subsequently replace the leukemic ones. Moreover, genetic modification knowledge can substantially be used to treat diseases and in the production of cheap drugs. People spend a lot of money in hospitals treating chronic conditions, including leukemia, despite full recovery chances being relatively low. The availability of the different drugs in the market can reduce the prices, becoming affordable for all people across the socioeconomic class. Therefore, genetic engineering reduces the chances of individuals visiting hospitals for treatment and similarly leads to developing medicines that treat different conditions at cheap costs.

Furthermore, genetic engineering reduces the chances of infertility among individuals in society. Liu et al. orate that infertility is, to a greater extent, hereditary in that it can be transferred from one generation to another (9). When women reach the age of forty-five and above, there are high chances that they might reduce the chances of missing their regular menstrual cycles due to menopause. As a result, genetic modification ensures that it delays such incidents despite the individuals’ actual age. It guarantees that the body responds slowly to aging, enabling the persons’ organs to function normally despite their late age. As a result, women continue being fertile despite being fifty years and beyond. Connectedly, genetic alteration increases the rates of fertility among women, hence qualifying its effectiveness.

However, some people oppose genetic engineering practice among human beings because of ethical concerns. According to Miller, ethically, it is only God who has the powers to determine people’s genes and nature (15). In other words, there is no being different than the Creator, who should have the supernatural powers to edit and determine the traits of the future generation genetically. Miller further opines that the practice has traces of blasphemy, which at long last could lead to high degrees of violence against the specific religious groups (15). The genetic alteration concept is tantamount to playing the Creator. There is no human being who has the discrete powers to determine the behaviors and traits of individuals. Dictating a person’s behaviors and nature to be born is equal to rectifying God about His work. Individuals should comprehend that the Creator has good plans for everyone regardless of their physical appearance or mental status. Therefore, genetic engineering is unethical, hence should be opposed in society. Hitherto, despite genetic modification of humans sounding unethical, the practice is critical. It helps in the comprehension of different diseases and subsequently develops authentic treatment strategies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is paramount mentioning that genetic engineering is effective which can positively enhance people’s lives. Regardless of some people being against the genetic alteration method, the technology is imperative since it leads to curing genetic diseases, delays aging, enhances genetic lottery, makes disease treatment cheap, and reduces infertility among people. Presently, there are diverse illnesses that are retrogressively affecting people today, including cancer and fibroids, among many other conditions. Despite these ailments having no medicine currently, they can be prevented from occurring in subsequent generations through hereditary engineering. Moreover, the technology aims to improve the fertility and aging levels among people in society. Nowadays, elderly adults are dying because of old-age-related diseases. There is a need for people to embrace the genetic engineering practice as an assurance of having a healthy, intelligent, and productive future generation. The conservatives should not focus on the negative aspects only but equally reflect on the pros of the gene alteration method. Above all, there is a need for civic education for the public to understand genetic modification’s prudence, hence convincing them to embrace it wholly.

References

Baylis, Françoise, and Marcus McLeod. “First-in-Human Phase 1 CRISPR Gene Editing Cancer Trials: Are We Ready?” Current Gene Therapy, vol. 17, no. 4, 2017, pp. 309−319. Web.

De Miguel Beriain, Iñigo. “Human Dignity and Gene Editing: Using Human Dignity as An Argument Against Modifying the Human Genome and Germline is a Logical Fallacy.”EMBO reports, vol. 19, no. 10, 2018, e46789. Web.

Gyngell, Christopher, et al. “The Ethics of Germline Gene Editing.”Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 34, no. 4, 2017, pp. 498−513. Web.

Liu, Jiaqi, et al. “CRISPR/Cas9 in Zebrafish: An Efficient Combination for Human Genetic Diseases Modeling.”Human Genetics, vol. 136, no. 1, 2017, pp. 1−12. Web.

Miller, Keith. “16 Advantages and Disadvantages of Human Genetic Engineering.”Future of Working: The Leadership and Career Blog. Web.

Rose, Kathleen M., et al. “Engaging the Public at a Science Festival: Findings from a Panel on Human Gene Editing.” Science Communication, vol. 39, no. 2, 2017, pp. 250−277. Web.

Introduction

The world’s stability in politics strongly relies on various factors. Although it can be conveniently stated that the adequacy, abundance and reliability of the global food supply has a major role to play in the enhancement of human life, in the long run, they influence the stability of the world’s politics. The globalizing sequence that has been witnessed in the sector of Agriculture together with the contemporary transformation of the world political economy is currently recognized by various policymakers as well as concerned citizens. New Zealand as my country has been part of the process.

The increase of food and livestock production since the early nineteen sixties has led to sufficiency of the words food supply which is necessary to provide humans with the energy necessary for sustained humanity. However, about eight hundred and twenty million individuals have the challenge of accessing adequate food which in turn has led to hundreds of children becoming seriously underweight in respect to their age and generally led to massive morbidity and mortality in various parts of the world. At the end of the twentieth century, amazing scientific and philosophical advances in agricultural productivity have not translated into a planet free of malnutrition and hunger (Gepts, 2002).

The recent vast development in modern science gives man kind a strong instrument that can bring to an end the current food insecurity. It is through increased knowledge and practice of better technologies in agriculture and food management that the world can substantially get rid of food insecurity. In the pursuit of addressing the above-mentioned problem and increasing the production of food for all, then there is a dire need for policymakers in agriculture and land use to reconsider the current status quo and change it for the better. Modern scientific practices which are proven and viable have to be put into use, one of this is the use of bio technological interventions.

Modern farming biotechnology is one of the most capable developments in contemporary science. If this technology is used in collaboration with other methods such as conventional and traditional production and breeding methods, it can lead to the increase in production of crops, it can also raise the resistance of crops to diseases and pests, increase the tolerance of crops to extreme weather conditions, improve the value of nutrition in some foods, and augment the durability of foodstuffs for the duration of harvesting or transportation (Campbell, M. Fitzgerald, A. et al, 2002). With sensible safety system, this can be done with slight or no risk to human being’s wellbeing and the surroundings.

Benefits of Genetic Engineering in Agricultural Sector

In order to address the current food insecurity in the United States of America, We definitely need a new system of agriculture that really meets the needs of the American people now and in the future. This then means that the country should have interventions in place aimed at producing food in a way which can be in sufficient supplies and in adequate quantities.

But the current trends today have shown that many countries including the United States of America always have focused in making short term decisions which are driven by generation of profits instead of fixing the problem once and for all. A vision of changing the agricultural sector in ways which can make the sector more sustainable looks like a big challenge to many countries of the world including ours, but it is a vision which can be achieved (Suppan, 2006). Importantly for us to accomplish change we have to critically understand where we are and know where we are supposing to go.

Biotechnology is the answer to the food security challenges our country is experiencing today, the technology mentioned can enable much larger populations of people to feed themselves. By biotechnology in agriculture we mean that crops and animals which are consumed by man should undergo intensive research aimed at their betterment and enhancement of more yields from them.

Genetic engineering is used to modify the gene compositions of microorganisms, animals and plants. The genes isolation is an activity that is ongoing, these genes are currently only being used to modify crops, and some productive food animals for increased yields and higher performance. Just like any other product, the genetically modified food products usually go through intensive development and research before they are allowed into the market for use or consumption. It is important to note that many products which show visible signs of causing harm if they are released never emerge from the development and research pipeline. Hence there is a safety mitigation protocol observed and by so doing there is no need of worrying about the uncertainties associated agro biotechnology.

Biotechnologically engineered plants can play a vital role in improving the current problems of food security and food prices in our country today (Suppan,2006). The technology can lead to abundance of variety of food supply through initiatives such as having more yields from less acreage of land and unexpectedly lower the cost of production through realized reduction in the cost of production and plant management such as reduced pesticide use and lowered weeding practices. Almost all the farming practices such as harrowing and pesticide application are dependant on machinery. On the other hand the machinery uses fossil fuel. Therefore the proposed agro-biotechnological practices will cut down the fuel consumption and the general cost of farming.

In our country statistics show that among the economic gains we experienced between 1996 to 2007, forty four percent of the gains were due to substantial produce gains and fifty six percent was due to reduction in the cost of production.

In the year 2007, the whole of the crop yields gains on a global scale came from the four principal biotechnological plants which include maize, soybean, canola and cotton was thirty two million tons, which could have been yields from extra ten million hectares of land if the biotechnological plants were not deployed. The thirty two million tons of increased plant yields coming from the biotechnological plants in our country in the year two thousands and eight comprised of fifteen point one million tons of maize, fourteen point five million tons of soybean, two million tons of cotton lint and a half a million tons of canola.

For the period stretching from the year nineteen ninety six to the year two thousands and seven economic gains were one hundred and forty one million tons which could have definitely used an additional forty three million hectares of land if the biotechnological crops were not present (Brookes, 2009), Thus, this statistics which are just a tip of the iceberg of the gains which our country could benefit from biotechnology.

The county has already benefited substantially from the increased productivity and lowered costs of food production from the current biotechnological plants in our farms across the nation. Hence it is quit clear that there is need to invest more in biotechnology in order to have diversified crops and animals which have enormous potential for our future human population. The generation to come will highly depend on the technology as this would be the only surest way of succeeding as far as farming is concerned. (Falk, C. M. Chassy, K. S. et al, 2002).

The developments in the control of a biotic stresses has shown tangible proposed reality which is aimed to addressing the probable droughts which might cover many regions of the nation and the world due to change in global climate. A food crop such as rice which is the most important food for the worlds poor populations has been modified and offers a brighter future to addressing the food security problems which the world is currently facing or might likely to face in the near future. The biotechnological rice offers many promises such as increasing its supply and reducing its price at the market and also provides sufficient nutrition such as vitamin A. this development in biotechnology with much approval can lead to lowered food prices, adequacy in the market and also alleviation of poverty (J. Huang, 2002).

Agro Biotechnology Can Alleviate Hunger and Poverty

Half of the global poorest individuals are usually resource deficient and small scale farmers and another twenty percent of the population are located in the rural areas and completely rely on agriculture in order to drive their lives and their livelihoods. Thus, any interventions which can raise the income of small scale farmers can really contribute directly to lowering or completely alleviation of poverty of the seventy percent of the globe’s poor people.

At the moment biotechnological cotton and maize have already shown pleasant contributions towards the income of many poor farmers and this can be increased drastically before the deadline for achieving the millennium development goals in the year two thousands and fifteen. Biotechnological rice is one plant which many poor people believe is a blessing in disguise, since the plant has benefit two hundred and fifty million rice households in the continent of Asia, and up to one billion individuals if we take a base of four members per a particular household with a half a hectare of rice grown these individuals can make at least a dollar day and sustain their wellbeing comfortably (Gepts, P. 2002).

To be able to attain poverty alleviation before the deadline set for millennium development goals, it is certain that poverty which is wide spread in our globe and affects all the facets of life should be gotten rid off, and the agro biotechnology seems to be a true answer to the alleviation of poverty, huger and suffering which in turn will lead to enjoyment of life and increased human productivity in the world.

The most crucial constraint to the implementation of biotechnological plants in many parts of the world including our country is need of suitable time/cost-effective and responsible legislation and thresholds that can incorporate all the information, knowledge and experience of the thirteen years of regulation. At the moment regulatory mechanisms and systems in most countries seems unnecessarily cumbersome.

In some cases it is quite hard to implement the system necessary for approving products which can be as much as one million dollar to deregulate. This scenario is beyond the scope of many countries and hence there is need to come up with realistic legislations and policies which can easily be taken up to enhance the implementation of the beneficial products. The eventual outcome would be an increased level of food production. This can eventually lead to feeding of all the people of the nation and the world at large.

Agro-Biotechnological Legislation

In the world today, many countries have the absolute freedom of formulating ways of dealing with bio safety and genetic technologies at the national level, but the national laws have to be the same as those of the world trade organization. On a global scale there are also some instruments used to check the field of biotechnology such as the bio safety protocol of Cartagena (Suppan, 2006). The interaction between the national and the international instruments brings a completely complex scenario. This hardened situation is probably the reason why the world can not solve the food insecurity situation that currently exists, since if biotechnological interventions which have shown to have potential impact of addressing the stated problem could be implemented then there could be sustainable and adequate supply of food for every individual in the world.

Conclusion

The adoption of new technologies which should be supported by appropriate public policies and services can prove the doomsday predictors wrong, and can make the state address the ever challenging food insecurity by putting in place the appropriate biotechnological practices.

We should learn from the past worlds historical events and forge a head into meeting the potential challenges of our time and of the future. 4000 thousand years of wheat farming made the Indian farmers to get yields of six million tons of wheat in the year 1947 on the other hand biotechnology applications in wheat assisted in surpassing the six tones of wheat which had been an effort of the 4000 years in just 4 years (Gepts, 002). This shows the power of synergy that can result if science and public policy is utilized and integrated well.

There are still open chances of harnessing the power of the above mentioned synergy in order to address the contemporary issues such as the food insecurity, hunger and poverty. Whether in addressing ecology or in economic problems gathered experience shows that a top down approach can’t sufficiently work out in fixing the problems. Information technology is of great help today as it has sufficiently provided great opportunities which reach many.

The future of small scale farmers and families certainly depends on the correct measures we take today in agriculture, this involves the use of the correct inputs doing the farming at the right time and using the right procedures. Biotechnology will certainly play a vital role in providing the right input components of farming through such aspects as soil health care, gene management, resourceful water management, incorporated pest management, included nutrient delivery and capable post harvest practices.

References

Brookes, G. (2009). Genetically Modified Crops: World Social- Economic and Ecological Impacts. UK: Economics Ltd.

Campbell, M. Fitzgerald, A. et al (2002). Pathogen resistance engineering in plants, transgenic study 11:599.

Falk, C. M. Chassy, K. S. et al. (2002). Food & Agricultural biotechnology: Concerns and benefits. Article of Nutrition 131:1383.

Gepts, P. (2002). Comparison of Traditional Crop Propagation, Plant Domestication and Crop Biotechnology, Crop Science 42:1780.

J. Huang, Pray, C. and Rozelle, S. (2002), Increasing the Food to feed the poor. Nature 418:678.

Suppan, S (2006). The World Trade Organization: Cartagena Protocol and EC- Biotechnological Products Ruling. Institution for Agriculture and Commerce Policy.

Genetic engineering is a technology of genetic modification. It allows scientists to alter the arrangement of genes by manipulating the protein sequence of the gene. This technology started to gain momentum in the middle of the twentieth century, although the concept first appeared in the 1920s. With the structure of DNA being revealed in 1953, genetic engineering received a solid foundation and attracted more and more enthusiasts. The rapid progression of research caused by such interest also led to some conflicts. The use of genetic engineering in the field of food production, for instance, divided scientists and consumers into two sides, where the first group argued about the immense benefits of cheaper, more resilient crops, and the second was concerned about possible health outcomes for people who consumed genetically modified foods.

As the science of genetic engineering progressed, so did the debate about its ethics. Currently, the main point of contention is the issue of human genes’ modification. This sphere of innovation usually includes two major topics – reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. While the latter is mostly used for research and medical experiments, the former deals with replication of animals, crops, and, theoretically, human beings. In this case, the ethics of human cloning and human genes’ alteration are at the center of the most heated debates. One side supports the modification of genes, while another argues against it on the grounds of morality and artificiality. It is clear that genetic engineering of humans is ethically flawed and should be heavily regulated to avoid harmful and society-damaging results.

The first reason to oppose the idea of manipulation of human genes lies in the morality of the process. While the creation of synthetic drugs and genetically modified vegetables can be excused on the grounds of helping people with limited resources, the process of gene alteration for humans stands on a different level of intrusion. As Bruce and Bruce note, personal benefits always come first when people try to defend the importance of genetic engineering (146). However, this argument usually only concerns non-human species and does not include the issue of genetic modifications in people. In this case, the morality of interfering with a human body is much more complicated. The level of research in genetic engineering has not reached the point where it is entirely safe to use on humans with no adverse effects. Thus, it places individuals who decide to participate in such experiments at risk. Moreover, their future children also become exposed to the same dangers.

Another issue lies in the future of humanity as well because researchers interested in human engineering can lose track of the primary purpose of this innovative scientific sphere. Millstone et al. argue that the regulations concerning genetic modifications lack structure and rigidity, which allows scientists to manipulate the current restrictions (24). A variety of dangers presented by the technology do not include moral considerations, instead focusing on purely scientific problems. This approach ignores the negative possibilities that can arise as a result. For instance, while talking about human modifications, Lynas argues that the science of genetic engineering can reach a point where human embryo may be sufficiently modified to fit one’s desires. Indeed, such a method can help some people to get rid of bad genes, but it can also damage the natural progression of the human population. The science behind these operations is not fully covered by the law, which allows researchers and enthusiasts to abuse the possibilities of gene modification.

The opposing side of this debate often argues about the benefits of genetic engineering and centers on the fact that future generations may become healthier and smarter as a result. For instance, de Araujo states that people may develop new cognitive capacities and eradicate diseases with the help of genetic modification (26). This argument is not baseless as science often focuses on the need to prevent genetic diseases from spreading. Nevertheless, the given description of the process resembles artificial selection and bares a profoundly unethical tone. As the author notes, many people compare this methodology with eugenics and highlight the adverse outcomes to human enhancement. In fact, the issue of the so-called gifted children comes into questions while discussing one’s ambition to modify the human gene. Artificially altered individuals may have privileges that others do not have due to their cognitive or physical abilities, which further supports the argument about unnatural selection. Therefore, this counterpoint fails to address moral considerations of the current population.

The discussion about genetic engineering and human enhancement is complicated by various ethical issues. The fact that people are divided on the grounds of scientific discovery and artificial human selection shows a divide between one’s drive to find new information and preserve the natural course of evolution. Although one can argue that non-human modification can bring positive results to the planet’s inhabitants, it is clear that its lack of regulation and overflowing ambitions of researchers may lead to dangerous consequences. Human genetic engineering should be heavily regulated to ensure that some individuals do not disrupt the natural progression of human development.

Works Cited

Bruce, Donald and Ann Bruce, editors. Engineering Genesis: Ethics of Genetic Engineering in Non-Human Species. Routledge, 2014.

de Araujo, Marcelo. “Editing the Genome of Human Beings: CRISPR-Cas9 and the Ethics of Genetic Enhancement.” Journal of Evolution and Technology, vol. 27, no. 1, 2017, pp. 24-42.

Lynas, Mark. “We Must Stop Trying to Engineer Nature.” NewStatesman. 2007, Web.

Millstone, Erik, et al. “Regulating Genetic Engineering: The Limits and Politics of Knowledge.” Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 31, no. 4, 2015, pp. 23-26.