Category: Genetics

Introduction

As of today, the practice of genetic engineering continues to remain highly controversial. In its turn, this can be explained by the fact that there are a number of the clearly defined ethical undertones to the very idea of inducing beneficial genetic mutations to a living organism.

After all, this idea presupposes the eventual possibility for people to realize themselves being the masters of their own biological destiny, in the evolutionary sense of this word.

Nevertheless, even though the practice in question indeed appears utterly debatable, the very objective laws of history/evolution leave only a few doubts that, as time goes on, more and more people will perceive it as being thoroughly appropriate. This paper will explore the validity of the above-stated at length.

Genetic Engineering Pros and Cons

In general, genetic engineering can be defined as: An artificial modification of the genetic code of an organism. It changes the physical nature of the being in question radically, often in ways that would never occur in nature (Cyriac 65).

Thus, it is most properly discussed as an umbrella term for the biotech practices that aim to alter the molecular basis of the DNA strand for a variety of different purposes, mostly concerned with allowing people to be able to enhance their lives.

As of now, we can identify three major directions, in which the ongoing progress in the field of the genetic engineering technologies (GET) has attained an exponential momentum: a) Deciphering the structure of the human genome, b) Transferring genes from the representatives of one species to another, c) Cloning. Even though GET became available since not long ago, these technologies proved thoroughly capable of benefiting humanity in a variety of different ways.

Among the most notable of them can be well mentioned:

a) Making possible the production of genetically modified foods. As Coker noted: In the United States and elsewhere, more than 90% of soybeans, cotton, corn, and certain other crops are already genetically engineered (24). The reason behind the growing popularity of this type of food is quite apparent  the application of getting increases the efficiency of agriculture rather drastically, which in turn contributes to solving the problem of worlds hunger.

b) Establishing the objective preconditions for the creation of drugs that could be used for treating diseases that are now being assumed incurable, such as AIDS and cancer. This, of course, presupposes that, as a result of GET being increasingly used by pharmacologists, the lifespan of an average individual should be substantially extended. The validity of this suggestion can be illustrated, in regards to the effects of such a widely used genetically modified drug as insulin, prescribed to those who suffer from diabetes.

c) Providing people with the opportunity to have their children (or pets) being genetically tailored, in accordance with what happened to be the concerned individuals personal wishes, in this respect. What it means is that, due to the rise of getting, the concept of eugenics became thoroughly sound once again: Besides ensuring that our children are born without genetic defects, we will soon be able to give them genetic enhancements: they will become taller, stronger, smarter (Anderson 23). Consequently, this will allow the biological betterment of human societies.

Nevertheless, even though there are many reasons to consider genetic engineering utterly beneficial to the well-being of humanity, some people cannot help deeming it utterly wicked  this especially appears to be the case among religious citizens.

The reason for this is quite apparent  ones ability to meddle with the structure of DNA, which in turn results in the emergence of the tailored life-forms, implies that the individual in question is nothing short of God.

In the eyes of a religious individual, however, this idea appears clearly sacrilegious: Humans must show respect for Gods dominion through attentive obedience to the immanent laws of creation (Clague 140). There are also a number of secular (non-religious) objections to genetic engineering.

The most commonly heard one is concerned with the fact that the effects of the consumption of genetically modified foods on humans have not been thoroughly researched. This, of course, establishes a hypothetical possibility for those individuals who consume these foods to end up suffering from a number of yet unexplored side effects.

It is also often mentioned that, because GET provides married couples with the hypothetical possibility to conceive and to give birth to ideal babies, it may eventually result in the emergence of the previously unheard forms of social discrimination against people, whose genome happened to be unmodified.

Moreover, there is a growing concern about the fact that being artificially created, the genetically altered forms of life may bring much disbalance to the surrounding natural environment, which is supposed to evolve in accordance with the Darwinian laws of natural selection.

Out of these objections, however, only the second one can be defined as being more or less plausible. After all, the availability of getting is indeed a comparatively recent phenomenon, which in turn implies that there may be some unforeseen aspects to it.

The rest of them, however, do not appear to hold much water  this especially happened to be the case with the religious one. The reason for this is that the process of just about any organism coming to life, which religion refers to as the miracle of creation, biologists have long ago learned to perceive as nothing but the consequence of the essentially blind flow of molecular reactions in the concerned DNA.

As Chapman pointed out: What causes the differentiation in the genetic code? The mechanism for this  the genetic software, if you will  comes through the epigenetic markers that surround the genome (170). In other words, the miracle of creation is ultimately about the chain of self-inducing genetic mutations, which presupposes that there is nothing intelligent or consciously purposeful to it in the first place.

Genetic engineering, on the other hand, makes possible the thoroughly rational manipulation with the structure of DNA  hence, allowing biologists to not only remain in full control of the process of a particular genetic mutation taking place but also to define its course.

It is understood, of course, that the practice in question does undermine the epistemological integrity of the worlds monotheistic religions, but this state of affairs has been predetermined by the laws of history and not by the practices wickedness.

Apparently, the fact that many people continue to refer to genetic engineering with suspicion, reflected by their irrational fear of genetically modified foods, once again proves the validity of the specifically evolutionary paradigm of life.

The reason for this is that, as we are well aware of, throughout the course of history, the implementation of technological innovations always been met with much resistance. In its turn, this can be explained by the fact that due to being hairless apes, people are naturally predisposed to cling to specifically those behavioral patterns, on their part, which proved luck-inducing in the past.

Nevertheless, as time goes on, their fear of the new grows progressively weakened  the direct consequence of peoples endowment with intellect. We can speculate that before deciding to become stock herders, hunter-gatherers used to experience a great deal of emotional discomfort, as well  yet, there was simply no way to avoid the mentioned transformation, on their part.

The reason for this is that it was dialectically predetermined. In the mentioned earlier article, Coker states: Eventually, humans took more control of animals and plants through agriculture, and then civilization took off. Today, we can hardly imagine how harsh the pre-agricultural existence must have been (27).

The same line of reasoning will apply when it comes to assessing what would be peoples attitudes towards genetic engineering in the future. In all probability, our descendants will look down on us in the same manner that we look down on the members of some primeval indigenous tribe, who were never able to evolve beyond the Stone Age. After all, in the future, leaving the formation of ones genome up to a chance will be considered barbaric.

Nevertheless, it is not only the laws of historical progress that presuppose the full legitimation of genetic engineering but the evolutionary ones, as well  something the exposes the sheer erroneousness of the claim that the concerned practice is unnatural.

In this respect, one may well mention the most important principle of evolution  the likelihood for a particular quantitative process to attain a new qualitative subtlety, positively relates to how long it remained active.

This principle, of course, suggests that for as long as the representatives of a particular species continue to expand the boundaries of their environmental niche (as it happened to be the case with humans), they will be experiencing the so-called evolutionary jumps.

The emergence of getting suggests that we, as humans, are about to experience such a jump  after having undergone the GET-induced transformation, we will instantly attain the status of trans-humans (or demi-gods). As Bostrom pointed out: Human nature is a work-in-progress&

Current humanity need not be the endpoint of evolution& (through) Technology and other rational means we shall eventually manage to become posthuman beings with vastly greater capacities than present human beings have (493).

Thus, even though the practice of genetic engineering continues to spark controversies, it is highly unlikely that this will also be ceased in 10-20 years from now  those proven much too slow, taking full advantage of genetic engineering, will simply be no longer around to debate its usefulness.

Conclusion

The earlier provided line of argumentation, in defense of the idea that genetic engineering indeed represents the way of the future, appears fully consistent with the papers initial thesis. Thus, it will be fully appropriate to conclude this paper by reinstating that the sooner people grow thoroughly comfortable with getting, the better.

In this respect, it will prove rather helpful for them to become aware that the emergence of genetic engineering is yet another indication that humanity remains on the pass of progress, and there is indeed nothing unnatural about the practice in question. This paper is expected to come as an asset within the context of just about anyone gaining such awareness.

Works Cited

Anderson, Clifton. Genetic Engineering: Dangers and Opportunities. The Futurist 34.2 (2000): 20-22. Print.

Bostrom, Nick. Human Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective. Journal of Value Inquiry 37.4 (2003): 493-506. Print.

Chapman, Davd. Beyond Genetic Determinism. Ethics & Medicine 29.3 (2013): 167-171. Print.

Clague, Julie. Some Christian Responses to the Genetic Revolution. Ethics & Medicine 19.3 (2003): 135-142. Print.

Coker, Jeffrey. Crossing the Species Boundary: Genetic Engineering as Conscious Evolution. Futurist 46.1 (2012): 23-27. Print.

Cyriac, Kar. Biotech Research: Moral Permissibility vs. Technical Feasibility. IIMB Management Review 16.2 (2004): 64-68. Print.

Epigenetics is a study of heritable phenotypic changes or gene expression in cells that are caused by mechanisms other than DNA sequence (Grossniklaus, Kelly, Ferguson-Smith, Pembrey, & Lindquist, 2013). Epigenetic changes may be stored in a number of cells and may be inherited by future generations. Basically, epigenetics studies how cells interpret information from genes and the mechanisms that control that interpretation. It is known that epigenetic changes depend on a variety of lifestyle factors that can trigger expressions of certain genes thereby affecting ones health.

Having interviewed my family and filled out the family history document, I was able to identify certain risks for my personal health. Heart issues and blood pressure appear to be the first concerns of which I need to be mindful. Both of my parents in their 50s have high blood pressure and cholesterol levels, which may be partly explained by their lifestyle choices but, nonetheless, pose a threat to my health and wellbeing through epigenetic mechanisms. Another key takeaway is the eyesight problems that the interview with my parents, grandparents, and other relatives releveled. Farsightedness is the condition they all started to experience closer to the age of 40 or 50. Since this issue was found in almost all people I interviewed, hyperopia is the condition for which I am the most at risk.

According to He, Li, Chan, and Hinton (2013), a variety of ocular diseases and conditions have underlying epigenetic mechanisms. Pathogenesis of various eye conditions is believed to be the emerging field of study in conjunction with the increasing evidence in favor of epigenetics omnipresence. The researchers state that epigenetics are able to assist in the treatment and early identification of eye problems. As such, the dynamic changes in chromatin changes create a context for various gene expressions. In particular, DNA methylation is reported to be catalyzed by methyltransferases (He et al., 2013). Extensive experimental data from both human and animal trials confirm that a variety of diseases including retinoblastoma, melanoma, amblyopia, cataract, and other issues are connected with gene expression.

Epigenesis and My Family History

It appears that the lifestyle of relatives and family members has a significant influence on their future generations. Not only poor choices in diet, sleep, exercising, and other behaviors may affect the health and wellbeing of an individual but also create a basis for negative consequences in his or her children and grandchildrens health. According to the research by He et al. (2013), certain consequences of lifestyle choices, post-operation issues, infections, and other health problems may reside in the cellular memory and reappear as symptoms and diseases in a future generation through gene expression. Similar conditions, however, are often necessary to trigger the reaction.

In light of my family history, such choices may include the unhealthy reading habits of my grandparents that might have created the susceptibility to poor eyesight in my mother and father. It becomes increasingly important for my future children and me to adopt healthy practices and be aware of our familys genetic history and aptitudes. As He et al. (2013) note the further research in epigenetics will bring humanity closer to finding genetic treatment methods that would be able to relieve people from such vile dispositions. Should such options become financially more available, our family needs to definitely try this approach. Now, it is in my power to safeguard my health and the health of my descendants from eye-related diseases and poor sight by increasing concern for practicing safe working, learning, and leisure practices that will positively affect eye health.

Living to 100 Questionnaire and Epigenetics

The questionnaire estimated that my life expectancy is about 81 years. The result was rather surprising considering the lack of sleep, and certain bad eating habits I mentioned. As for the recommendations, bone and joint diseases were identified as risk factors that shorten my lifespan by one year. This is a concern as my grandparents both have arthritis. Despite now my wellbeing is not affected by any symptoms of brittle bones disease and no medications were prescribed, I would have to take a proactive approach to eliminate the possibility of arthritis-related gene activation. Problems in the cardiovascular area were also mentioned as a concern. Both my parents and grandmother are affected by different heart-related issues, which again enables me to plan and develop prevention strategies (Mather, Kwok, Armstrong, & Sachdev, 2014). The fact that I rarely undergo examination for cancer and other diseases undermines my capacity to identify and address other health issues that have a hereditary basis.

Being mindful about epigenetic mechanisms and family history is paramount for maintaining health in the present and future (Szic, Declerck, Vidakovi, & Berghe, 2015). In addition, periodical testing and evaluation of health conditions may underline aspects in which personal behavioral intervention may be lacking, and medical attention is in order. This test allowed me to confirm the fact that the issues that my relatives have may reappear in me. Therefore, I need to take precautions.

Improving Health and Longevity

My family history analysis revealed that primary concerns are blood pressure, cholesterol, heart diseases, and joint issues such as arthritis (see appendix 1). What may be seen as typical health issues of older adults and those close to seniority, in light of epigenetics become problems that need addressing through behavioral and medicational interventions on the inter-generational scale? This analysis identifies possible risk areas of which I need to be extremely careful. The Living to 100 questionnaire allowed me to further the understanding of my hereditary risks and confirm dangerous tendencies.

Suggestions to improve my potential longevity may include regular health examinations and behavioral interventions such as non-sedentary activities. In addition, regular blood sugar level and blood pressure monitoring could help identify unhealthy trends. Small but regular doses of calcium and aspirin could also partly address my hereditary potential to develop arthritis, osteoporosis, prevent heart attacks, and other heart-related diseases. The understanding of epigenetics enables me to place more emphasis on eliminating unhealthy practices that my relatives have. It also teaches me to develop healthy ones in order to prevent my children from having the same issues at an older age.

References

Family health history worksheet. (2011). Web.

Grossniklaus, U., Kelly, W. G., Ferguson-Smith, A. C., Pembrey, M., & Lindquist, S. (2013). Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: How important is it? Nature Reviews Genetics, 14(3), 228.

He, S., Li, X., Chan, N., & Hinton, D. R. (2013). Epigenetic mechanisms in ocular disease. Molecular vision, 19, 665.

Mather, K. A., Kwok, J. B., Armstrong, N., & Sachdev, P. S. (2014). The role of epigenetics in cognitive ageing. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 29(11), 1162-1171.

Szic, K. S., Declerck, K., Vidakovi, M., & Berghe, W. V. (2015). From inflammaging to healthy aging by dietary lifestyle choices: Is epigenetics the key to personalized nutrition? Clinical epigenetics, 7(1), 33.

Appendix 1

Introduction

Multifactorial traits refer to the physical and behavioral differences in human beings. Such traits include height, skin color, fingerprints, physical weight and height, behavioral conditions and tendencies, and eye color among others. Some traits are inherited while others are acquired depending on the environmental conditions of ones upbringing. According to Mendels law, inherited traits and medical conditions are said to be a single gene. Hence, they are linked to the chromosome, hence inheritable within the family tree. Therefore, genes and environmental conditions mold most of the multifactorial traits in human beings (Cummings, 2011).

Significance of Multifactorial Traits

Multifactorial traits are very important in the livelihood of human beings. Some factors explain why human beings are different in physical nature, and thus science has developed ways of utilizing those differences to distinguish individuals in a population. The most notable distinguishable multifactorial traits are skin color, eye color, fingerprints, height, body weight, behavioral condition, and tendencies. First, skin color is the most notable difference in human beings. Human beings use skin color as the basis for classifying themselves. However, science has proved that skin color does not bear a major difference in human beings.

Skin color is determined by the level of melanin pigments in human beings. The skin has special cells called melanocytes that contain melanin, which produces the skin color. The main use of skin color is to protect the DNA from the ultraviolet rays of the sun. Human beings who lack melanin do not have a skin color, and the condition is referred to as albinism. Hence, science has proved that skin color serves the purpose of protecting the DNA pigments from the ultraviolet rays, which could be damaging. This assertion contravenes the theoretical beliefs that people have been having for many centuries.

In the United States, differences in skin color have contributed to unnecessary conflicts amongst ethnic groups for a long time. However, the situation started changing during the era of civil movements when awareness campaigns were carried out to educate people about their equality regardless of differences in skin color. The situation has not fully changed in the 21^st Century, but efforts are still being made in the medical fields to create awareness about the equality of skin color regardless of distinguishable differences among the races.

Science has evidence that dark skins are most suitable in some parts of the world that experience hot weather as they are better for the protection of DNA against the scorching sun and ultraviolet rays. This understanding explains why Sub-Saharan Africa comprises dark-skinned populations. In contrast, even though dark-skinned people adapt well to hot climatic zones, there is no evidence that there is a difference in the concentration of melanin pigments per square centimeter among different races. Therefore, darkness in the skin does not imply richness in the melanin pigments, as many people have believed (Rosenberg & Rosenberg, 2012).

However, some notable differences are attributed to skin color such as the hair whereby dark-skinned people have darker hair as compared to their white-skinned counterparts who have multicolored hair. Various advantages are attributed to the differences in skin color. First, skin color differences help in the classification of human beings. Human beings are classified according to their notable physical differences. Therefore, skin color plays a major role in the classification of human beings, which is commonly referred to as a race. The notable skin color differences among people of different nationalities help in such classification. For instance, South Koreans have a different skin color from the Japanese even though they are Asians.

Second, in the contemporary world, people have theoretical beliefs that skin color contributes to certain behavioral and tendency characteristics. Therefore, government and security agencies use skin color characteristics to identify possible suspects for security reasons. Even though science objects to this notion, theoretical beliefs have helped security agencies to narrow down human classification based on the differences in skin color. Third, human beings choose locations where they are in a position to interact with others freely. Hence, they tend to prefer areas that have people with similar skin color characteristics. For instance, in Los Angeles in the United States, some suburban areas are attributed to Latinos and others to Blacks since they form the majority populations in those respective areas. Hence, differences in skin color contribute to the choosing of a habitat location for human beings.

Additionally, the eye color multifactorial trait is notable in human beings. Certain scientific theories hold that every human being has unique eyes. The uniqueness in the human eye is subject to its color. Eye color is a polygenic trait that is not determined by environmental characteristics. The four most common eye colors in human beings include brown, blue, green, and hazel. However, some differences exist regarding color richness regarding darkness and lightness. Besides, the nature of color distribution patterns concerning rings, streaks, flecks, and specks in the eye produces notable differences. In the United States and other developed countries, people are registered according to the most notable differences in their bodies. Therefore, eye color is used to distinguish a persons characteristics in a population. Hence, security agencies use eye color to track down suspects since the topographical characteristics of the eyelids are as distinguishable as fingerprints. The advantage of the human eye is that it cannot be interfered with due to its delicate nature and thus suspects are easily identifiable (Segal, 2012).

Fingerprints are a major multifactorial trait in human beings. Every human being has unique fingerprints hence the major reason they are used for registration in every part of the world. Human beings have fingertips that have folded skin to form loops, whorls, and arches. Every human being has an unequaled pattern that is identified by the number of ridges. The nature of fingerprints is a polygenic characteristic albeit everybody has unique fingerprint characteristics hence the condition is not altered by environmental conditions in which a person grows up. Fingerprints are the oldest form of distinguishable characteristics in human beings, and they have been used to identify the identity of human beings in the security and registration departments around the world (Yashon & Cummings, 2011).

Height is also a notable multifactorial trait in human beings. However, it is both a polygenic and environmental characteristic. A person can inherit height characteristics from the family tree. For instance, some families have tall members, while others are short or dwarfs. However, in some situations, a family with tall parents can produce a short child. In such a case, environmental factors are highly likely to affect ones growth. The availability of food and diseases is the most common environmental condition that affects growth hence a persons height. Human beings have notable height differences, and thus height is used as a distinguishable characteristic in human beings. In the United States, the correctional system uses height characteristics to distinguish convicts within the facilities.

Body weight is also a notable multifactorial trait in human beings. Just like height, body weight can be both polygenic and environmental. Hence, it is an essential tool for distinguishing human beings in a population. Moreover, body weight is used as a tool for studying health conditions whereby a change in body weight in a population over a long period depicts a change in health conditions in a particular environment.

Lastly, behavioral conditions and tendencies are common multifactorial traits in human beings. There is no scientific evidence to prove that skin color contributes to differences in behavioral conditions and tendencies among human beings. However, in the United States, some theories hold that people of particular races have specific behaviors and tendencies. The black population is associated with violence while the White population is linked with calmness. Some polygenic behaviors and tendencies are notable in the family trees. Besides, environmental conditions play a major role in determining the nature of behavioral tendencies in human beings. For instance, a child is highly likely to acquire behaviors of the people in the surrounding. However, adults are distinguishable by behavioral characteristics that every individual possesses.

Conclusion

In conclusion, multicultural traits in human beings are essential for distinguishing individual characteristics in a population. In the contemporary world, the population of human beings has grown immensely hence essential for government registration and security agencies to utilize multifactorial traits to distinguish individuals within the population. The most common multifactorial traits are eye color, fingerprints, height, body weight, behavioral conditions, and tendencies.

References

Cummings, M. (2011). Human Heredity: Principles and issues. New York, NY: Cengage.

Rosenberg, L., & Rosenberg, D. (2012). Human Genes and Genomes: Science, Health, Society. Waltham, MA: Academic Press.

Segal, N. (2012). Born Together  Reared Apart: The Landmark Minnesota Twin Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Yashon, R., & Cummings, M. (2011). Human Genetics and Society. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.

In data mining, the decision tree analysis is used to determine the best choice from various viable options. Through this process, researchers and managers get an opportunity to evaluate the risks, benefits and inconsistencies associated with the decisions. The first step is structuring the problems or issues being faced by the organization as a tree. At the end of each branch, all the benefits are listed to help in evaluating the path with the most benefits. After the benefits have been determined, the next step involves assigning subjective probabilities to all the activities on the tree (Qu, Adam, Yasui, Ward, & Cazares, 2002). On each of the choices, the possibilities on risks, errors and ambiguities are listed to help in evaluating the best option.

The benefits of making certain decisions are associated with consequences to develop better comparison strategies that would come up with the best decision. This enhances the decision-making process and enables corporations to develop a model for dealing with the company (Qu, Adam, Yasui, Ward, & Cazares, 2002). The company focuses on the strategies that are in place and the efficiency of the strategies selected. The persons engaged in the process find better means of engaging in the process and develop comparisons based on the models present.

Arts could be used to determine the best way to treat an individual suffering from a chronic illness. Through the strategies used, the illnesses can be determined and a solution about the patients being treated, found. A more cost-effective and efficient approach, in which the detained get their correction more economically, has been found. Here detained persons get a more practical feeling, and this helps them appreciate their correction method. The medical facilities might be used to make decisions based on various detainees and these decisions might be altered by personal reflections. These decisions may reflect the actual situation hence proving the practitioner more alternatives concerning an individual situation. The facilities holding these detainees are important in devising means of generating income, with the detainees being the resources before the training. This helps in the running of the treatment facility and at the same time adding value to the patients. The strategy is widely used and those who would want a change in the penal system of punishment advocate for it to improve the quality of the treatments (Qu, Adam, Yasui, Ward, & Cazares, 2002). The data mining process entails extraction, storage and management, analysis and presentation. This is as presented in figure 1 below.

Genetic Algorithm

The other method is the genetic algorithm. In this process, the social and medical principles are tested to ascertain the correct format and approach to be used. The issues of natural and genetic selections determine the best spices to be analyzed and evaluated. Societies have frameworks put in place to critically analyze the genetic institutions in the different parts of the world (Cavill, Keun, Holmes, LIndon, & Nicholson, 2009). Genetics is used to solve problems. In addition, it is used to challenge puzzles and the basics for competent machine learning. When using the genetic algorithm technique, medical practitioners can determine the actual age and genetic structure of various individuals. Sociological perspectives view social institutions as complex organizations, especially concerning treatment. If assembled well, social and historical forces shape patients attributes and ensure that integration and accountability are not compromised.

This represents a situation where the patients are given priority. Their genetic characteristics are compared to other methods of data collection. Under this strategy, most individuals can be tested and related to certain illnesses, most of which are genetically motivated (Cavill, Keun, Holmes, LIndon, & Nicholson, 2009). This also assists in the development of curative alternatives, in metabolism and other biological processes. Genetics also helps in the analysis and formulation of treatment criteria.

In conclusion, the data mining process is essential in all research fields. Proper use of data mining tools increases the credibility of the information retrieved by reducing error margins and increasing precision. In medical practices and research, the above data mining tools can be applied in making treatment options and in the development of reliable and effective drugs for patients. Genetic algorithm and decision tree analysis help in ensuring that medical practices are performed to perfection.

References

Cavill, R., Keun, H. C., Holmes, E., LIndon, J. C., & Nicholson, J. K. (2009). Genetic Algorithms for Simultaneous Variable and Sample Selection in Metabonomics. Bioinformatics, 25(1), 112-118.

Qu, Y., Adam, B. L., Yasui, Y., Ward, M., & Cazares, L. H. (2002). Boosted Decision Tree Analysis of Surface-Enhanced Laser Desorption/Ionization Mass Spectral Serum Profiles Discriminates Prostate Cancer from Noncancer Patients. Clinical Chemistry, 48, 1835-1843.

Background

Obesity is one of the main health issues faced by people of all ages. It affects their lives through limitations implemented on the physical activity, associated disorders, and even emotional pressure. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), more than 2 in 3 adults and 1 in 6 children are obese, which means that their body mass index (BMI) is more than 30kg/m2 (Overweight & Obesity Statistics). Such results make the professionals presuppose that diabetes will be diagnosed in 1 in 3 children born after 2000. Not only healthcare professionals but also governmental representatives understand that this problem became crucial. Thus, a lot of various initiatives are developed to improve the situation, and large amounts of money are spent.

The issue of obesity requires thorough investigation because enough evidence was gathered to claim that it is the main risk factor for numerous diseases, including cardiovascular, metabolic, osteoarticular ones. For example, it is associated with sleep apnea and diabetes. In addition to that, its connections with cancer and psychiatric illnesses are undeniable. Only in children, obesity causes type 2 diabetes and increases chances of fatal outcomes for coronary heart disease (Obesity and Overweight).

The prevalence of obesity and its influences on the public health are widely discussed. However, individual causes and consequences require further investigation. The representatives of the general public tend to believe that obesity is caused by the calorie-rich food and beverages. This fact is also supported by scientists and researchers who investigated the issue. However, more recent studies also emphasize the fact that generic reasons define the way people gain weight and how fat is stored. Thus, even though obesity is often caused by peoples lifestyles, it is tightly linked to genetics due to numerous locations across the genome that affect obesity traits.

Genetic Basis of Obesity

Pathophysiologic mechanisms of obesity are discussed by numerous professionals, but a lot of questions remain unanswered. They are seen as complex interactions of various factors that influence peoples health, including behavioral, environmental, and genetic ones. Today, the issue of obesity becomes more and more critical so that the number of obese individuals among children and adults increase enormously.

Such tendency can be explained by the increased popularity of highly calorific food and beverages that are consumed by human beings and by the dominating sedentary lifestyle that captures people in modern times. It is interesting that a long time ago when food was less available, and humans had to search for it wasting enormous amounts of energy due to physical activity, overweight and obesity could have been treated as a benefit because it had a survival advantage. However, today the situation is much different, and the majority of the general public need to spend more energy than they consume.

Those studies that focused on the issue of obesity and its development provided a lot of evidence that can be used to support the significance of a genetic component in the risk of becoming obese. For instance, twin studies have been used as a model for the evaluation of the genetic component. Their advantage is that they provide an opportunity to compare how monozygotic (MZ) twins and non-identical dizygotic (DZ) twins differ. As the first ones are genetically identical and the next ones share only a half of their genetic material, it was possible to identify how their condition was influenced by genetics.

It was revealed that the concordance for fat mass among MZ twins has been reported to range from 7090%, while in DZ twins it is 3545% (Xia and Grant 179). These findings prove that obesity has a genetic component that plays a vital role in peoples condition. They emphasize the fact that this disorder can be inherited, which is critical for this issue. However, the way the studies are also performed matters because in one of Stunkards seminal studies, the heritability of 77% for BMI was found to increase to 84% at a 25-year follow-up in a sample of 1,974 MZ and 2,097 DZ male twin pairs (Xia and Grant 179).

The influence of environmental and genetic factors was also investigated on the basis of adoption and family studies. Their findings revealed that the BMI of adopted children correlated with their biological parents but not with adoptive ones. Considering children separated at birth, it was found out that identical twins who were raised in different environmental conditions still reveal an association between their BMI. Even though there is no such evidence for nonidentical twins raised apart, particular conclusions can be made. In addition to that, researchers identified that various racial/ethnic groups have a particular prevalence of obesity. For instance, in Asian populations, it is about 35% while in Indian populations about 50%. Thus, genetic insight for obesity cannot be denied.

This evidence proves that genetics play a vital role in the determination of BMI, which also presupposes that it affects risks for obesity enormously. However, such findings also provide evidence that supports the complicity of identification of the specific causes of obesity. Interactions between genes and other factors are difficult to explore and are not well-discussed yet (Strander).

Monogenic and Polygenic Obesity

According to the PHG Foundation, genetic differences are tightly associated with those observed within peoples BMI (PHG Foundation 1). In the majority of cases when obesity turns out to be a critical issue during the first years of life, monogenic type of this disorder is observed. It presupposes the presence of a defect only in one particular gene, which makes people eat more so that they get much more energy than those individuals who do not have such issues. This mutation is usually observed in 8 genes and 1 deletion. When this information was revealed, researchers understanding of biological mechanisms enhanced enormously. The connection between regulation of energy intake and obesity became undoubtful and was discussed further. Even though such type of mutation is rare individually, all its variants are connected with 1 in 10 cases of severe obesity among children.

Common obesity that is not discussed as an outcome of one mutation, but it is also connected with genes. Unfortunately, regardless of the fact that the association between genetics and this type of disorder is proved, its complex interference is less understood. Such problem can be explained by the implication of multiple genes instead of a single one. They interact with each other, contributing to the adverse outcomes. What is more, they are also influenced by environmental factors that can make the issue of obesity more or less critical. Due to such characteristics, professionals often call this type of obesity a polygenic one. It is stated that in common obesity, genome-wide association studies have identified 32 loci robustly associated with BMI.

However, these 32 loci combined explain less than 1.5% of the total variation in BMI within the population (PHG Foundation 2). Among these genes, there are some that affect the role of central regulation in obesity through their influence on the central nervous system. Some of them may be affected by monogenic forms of obesity. However, the majority of them are for those markers that cannot be found in the known genes. Thus, a lot of peculiarities remain unknown and require further investigation. For now, it is already known that genetics has an enormous influence on peoples desire to eat. This information can be used to approach the representatives of the general population when developing initiatives for obesity prevention.

The issue of obesity is often investigated nowadays, which means that numerous studies are maintained to discover all its peculiarities. In many cases, researchers focus not only on their sample but also on the condition of their relatives when they search for the reasons and outcomes of obesity. In their findings, they come to a conclusion that at it is a highly heritable trait. That is why it is advantageous to resort to the family history before searching for some health problems when treating patients with obesity.

According to the recent studies, heritability is often associated with this health problem. However, professionals who discuss heritability of illnesses tend to omit it, as they prefer to focus on the problems they believe to be more critical, such as schizophrenia and hypertension. Regardless of the fact that polygenic diseases and other complex traits are usually discussed in this framework, quantitative obesity sub-phenotypes can be considered in order to determine heritability of some characteristics. As a rule, the focus is put on skinfold thickness, waist circumference, and fat distribution.

Familial Obesity

As it was discovered that obesity could be explained by heritability, the sphere of obesity genetics developed. For about 10 years, it was focused on the monogenic or syndromic obesity only. In the laboratory environment, professionals cloned the mouse ob gene and human leptin. The use of human homolog provided an opportunity to develop a paradigm for the area. With the course of time, it was identified that the regulation of appetite that depends on the leptin-melanocortin pathway is connected with a range of different genes and is affected by them enormously.

These variants are aligned with about 5% of morbid obesity cases. Of course, they deal with leptin and its receptor because it affects regulation of appetite. The ±-melanocortin-stimulating hormone receptor (MC4R) is discussed in this framework for the same reason. In addition to that, pro-opiomelanocortin (POMC) and prohormone convertase-1 are known for having the influence on this process and developing obesity because of some defects (Nohr et al. 114). These are believed to be pure types of obesity because they are not clinical features of other Mendelian disorders. They presuppose that issues with appetite regulation are caused directly by gene defects and are observed initially without any aligned illnesses.

Testing for Obesity

It is important to continue gathering information regarding the genetic basis of obesity. It can be used to enhance the quality of decision-making regarding genetic testing for the identification of risks and causes of this disorder. Being aware of this critical data, professionals will have an opportunity to implement those initiatives that prevent obesity in the majority of cases or at least improve its treatment. Such decisions should be made on the basis of information obtained due to the testing as well as knowledge, ethical, social, and legal peculiarities.

Trying to predict obesity risk in the framework of common polygenic obesity, professionals focus on 32 genetic loci. However, they are able to explain only about 1.5% of the total BMI variation. In this way, they can hardly lead to concrete conclusions regarding BMI peculiarities and obesity risk because of these limitations. Thus, it is believed that genetic testing is not appropriate for common obesity. Even when using it, researchers fail to come to a proper conclusion. What is more critical, such testing may turn out to be harmful to people because it can reveal some small genetically influenced risk that demotivates individuals to implement those lifestyle changes that have a potentially positive influence on their health condition.

However, if professionals believe that a person is affected by monogenic obesity, genetic testing can be rather advantageous. These forms of obesity are extremely severe, and they lead to the adverse health consequences. They are associated with high levels of physiological and psychological morbidity among the affected populations. Genetic testing provides an opportunity to focus on congenital leptin deficiency. If it is revealed, a monogenic disorder can be diagnosed, and an effective treatment provided timely. Unfortunately, other genetic causes tend to have no appropriate medicament treatment. However, it is still possible to resort to tailored and appropriate management.

Current Approaches to the Treatment of Obesity

The issue of obesity is currently discussed all over the world. In the majority of cases, governments cooperate with healthcare systems in order to develop those guidelines and policies that can be used to prevent and manage obesity. However, it is critical to consider that in the majority of cases they are interested the environmental causes. They are not interested in the role of genetics and tend to mention its role only in a perfunctory manner, pointing out other causes as more severe and complicated ones.

Even though the genomics of obesity is poorly discussed, they are also approached by professionals. Those services that are aligned with them tend to differ between areas. Nevertheless, they are generally focused on the increasing intervention intensity. When treating people with obesity that was observed during the first years of life and associated with hyperphagia, professionals should resort to genetic testing. Within it, they are expected to focus on those genes that are discussed in the framework of monogenic obesity. This testing should be maintained by those professionals who focus on the provision of obesity services. What is more, it should be accompanied by genetic counseling provided before and after this assessment.

Obesity is usually treated on 4 levels that depend on its severity. Level 1 interventions for children and adults resort to population prevention initiatives. These can be school-based programs, parental education, self-help, and national policies. Level 2 interventions are usually used in the framework of community-based programs or primary care, including exercise referral or pharmacotherapy. Level 3 is used in the framework of specialist obesity service with the conduction of genetic testing. Level 4 deals with surgical interventions. While bariatric surgery is offered when dealing with adult population, it is not recommended for children.

Gene Studies

In the majority of cases, those gene studies that discuss common obesity focus on those gene mutations that are found in monogenic forms of this disorder. However, they were able to achieve only partial success considering the determination of those genetic peculiarities that can be used to define obesity. Mainly, it is maintained due to the association with a suspected disease-causing gene. It is often selected on the basis of a biological hypothesis on the pathophysiological mechanisms of obesity. Unfortunately, they are often rather vague and generally still unknown. Thus, the identification of a candidate gene with the help of hypothesis-driven association approach seems to be a tool that is appropriate only for a small fraction of the genetic risk factors (Puiu et al. 274).

Changes in leptin gene and the leptin receptor are discussed when obesity caused by genetic issues is presupposed. There is enough evidence to prove its association with BMI and this disorder in several populations. For instance, professionals pay attention to adiponectin. It is a hormone that enormously affects the regulation of glucose and fatty acids. The findings reveal that it reduces levels of obesity and type 2 diabetes. In addition, its association with these health issues was found in various populations all over the world.

What is more, association studies of various nominated candidate genes have also implicated the genes encoding such factors as the cannabinoid receptor 1 (CNR1), dopamine receptor 2 (DRD2), serotonin receptor 2C (HTR2C), and SLC6A4, but the most replicated of them is the Pro12Ala substitution in the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma(PPAR³) gene, which has been extensively associated with both obesity and type 2 diabetes (Xia and Grant 184). These research studies prove that obesity is a healthcare issue that is caused not only by severe mutations in a single gene but by rather weak influences of multiple genes. Thus, it is advantageous to consider the usage of non-hypothesis approaches that allow professional to omit basic limitations.

Conclusion

Obesity is a healthcare issue that affects the population of different countries all over the world. Evidence proves that it is associated with numerous leading causes of mortality and morbidity. For instance, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and even cancers. What is more, it affects economy due to high costs of required services and medications.

It is not only misbalance in energy consumption but a complex mix of biological and environmental factors that affect BMI. In addition to that, obesity is highly heritable, but this characteristic is poorly investigated. Taking into consideration the information discussed earlier, such conclusions related to the link between obesity and genetics can be revealed:

Polygenic obesity: Unfortunately, today common obesity genes cannot be sufficiently identified using genetic testing, which means that there is no necessity to misuse and waste resources recommending them in the hospital settings.

Monogenic obesity: Early-onset obesity that is caused by a single gene mutation can be investigated with the help of genetic testing. However, even in this case, professionals should remember that if a single gene cause was not identified, it does not mean that this option should be totally excluded. There is still a possibility that not all causative genes are already known. However, advantages of genetic testing are still observed. What is more, if the identified type of obesity has no pharmacological treatment, professionals need to consider lifetime support initiatives. They should help patients to lose and manage their weight. Hopefully, additional research studies will improve current knowledge regarding risks and causes of obesity, especially those linked to genetics.

Works Cited

Nohr, Anne et al. The orphan G protein-coupled receptor GPR139 is activated by the peptides: Adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), ±-, and ²-melanocyte stimulating hormone (±-MSH, and ²-MSH), and the conserved core motif HFRW. Neurochemistry International, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 105-113.

Obesity and Overweight. WHO, 2016.

Overweight & Obesity Statistics. NIH, 2012.

PHG Foundation. Obesity  A Growing Concern.

Puiu, Maria et al. Genetics and Obesity. 2013. Web.

Strander, Sumita. Genetics to Blame for Obesity. Dartmouth, 2015.

Xia, Qianghua, and Struan Grant. The Genetics of Human Obesity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1282, no. 1, pp. 178-190.

Many people do not appreciate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) due to the lack of depth in knowledge. When asking some individual about GMOs, he or she might speak most of the time about the food and its harm. However, it is not a reason to claim only the negative side of some problems because of the knowledge gap. Based on many resources, I consider genetically modified organisms a positive trend in human development due to their innovativeness and helpfulness in many areas of life, even though GMOs are fatal for many insects.

First and foremost, it is hard to estimate the value of GMOs in virology fairly. Especially now, humankind is in danger of growing demand for vaccines, which were created at the beginning of the vaccines producing process. Scientists try to modify the cells structure to neutralize the virus. Nevertheless, even if the task is not completed, it is crucial to proceed with the findings because it may lead scientists to solve the problem in another sphere of life. For instance, when producing some medicines, scientists may concentrate on providing high-quality research on genome production, but sometimes they may investigate a scientific unit of another sphere of life.

Secondly, farms are the main units of benefit-receiving from GMO development. Because of climate change and preventive quarantine measures, people cannot grow plants naturally. Some plants and bushes are dying during the heat, which may negatively affect the countrys internal food production and consumption. On the other hand, scientists who specialized in GMOs overcame this issue. By using GMO-containing fertilizers, farmers are aimed to develop their crops in any weather conditions, which helps continue economic stability (Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 2020). This leads to the notion that the possible results of being against GMOs will turn the countries into a crisis due to the high demand. The new era is struggling for changes, so the world habitants should adjust to the other living conditions and continue functioning differently.

However, GMOs are also damaging peoples life in some specific cases. Turning to the insects and other live organisms, are harmed by humankind; by eating GM plants, beetles are dying because of the chemicals in the plant (The Royal Society, 2016). This leads to the notion that one day many helpful insects (such as beetles) will not accomplish protecting the ecosystems rules because all of their food will be poisoned. From this perspective, GMOs should stop to proceed their work in natural spheres of life. Genome modification is a great thing to my thinking, but how it is interpreted and realized in everyday life is slightly different from right peoples claims.

As a result, I insist on banning GMOs in organic life dimensions, such as inedible plants, due to their unimportance in saving humankind due to their harm to the Earths ecosystem. To be more specific, if changing the peoples products, only people as a species suffer from being harmed or poisoned by GM products. Despite the danger of such products, GMOs are regulated by three institutions in the USA: Food and drug administration (FDA), the environmental protection agency (EPA), and the animal and plant health inspection service (APHIS) (Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 2020). Because of such strong regulation, I will not pay much attention to the GMO-labelled products because they passed a three-level examination, I completely changed my opinion about GMOs on the positive side when doing the research.

Overall, it is crucial to realize the value of GMOs from the food products perspective and consider the other spheres of life developed only because of this phenomenon. On the one hand, many GM products provide stable economic growth, so crises are unlikely to happen. Moreover, when disclosing the possibilities of genomes modifications, scientists might disclose how to protect people from certain diseases. Nevertheless, genome modifications may also cause an ecosystem crisis due to the insects destruction and the nature stagnation after this possible process.

References

The Royal Society. Do GM crops damage the environment? | Royal Society. (2016). Web.

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. (2020). Science and History of GMOs and Other Food Modification Processes. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Web.

Introduction

One of the greatest scientific breakthroughs of the 21st century has been the ability of humans to modify organisms to satisfy their needs. This advancement has had many impacts on human lives, both negative and positive. However, the positive effects of this development have been far greater than the negative impacts, and this development has made life better in general. The modification includes cultivation and manipulation of crops, selective breeding, fermentation products, genetic engineering, forensic biology, treatment of oil spills, and making biofuels. Genetic modification of plants and animals for food has increased crop yields as the modified plants and animals have more desirable features such as better production.

Better Food Production

The cost of production of food has decreased because of the genetic modification of various plants. This is due to specific modification of plant species by species resistant to pests. The plants that are resistant to pests do not require insecticides, which ensures that farmers can save on the cost of pesticides. The increased production of food at a cheaper cost guarantees food security and promises to eliminate food shortages and hunger globally. Multiple agricultural organizations, both global and national in various places, encourage their people to plant modified plants to ensure increased yields. These modified plants grow up to reasonable heights and do not occupy much space within the gardens. This ensures maximum utilization of space and enhances effectiveness. The modified animals such as pigs also guarantee higher reproduction hence more meat. They are resistant to diseases that ordinarily affect pigs and are therefore better suited for food production.

Better Economics

In addition to increased food production, modified organisms are a source of bigger profit and hence generally better for business people. The increased scientific developments in this field promise to be a source of economic stimulation and development. Less capital is spent on resources such as the health of organisms and space. Nutritional value is enhanced in modified organisms through the addition of previously lacking minerals and vitamins. This ensures better health for the people consuming these organisms hence a healthier world. Modified organisms are also better adapted to the harsh conditions in some parts of the world. Some plants are genetically modified to guarantee their survival in harsh conditions such as drought-laden areas. This feature ensures that seasonal variations are not a barrier to agriculture and food production in general.

Counterarguments and Conclusion

Those against modifying organisms for human needs argue that this development interferes with their moral and religious beliefs. This raises a dilemma over whether moral and religious reasons should be overlooked in the advancement of the human species. These issues must be overlooked since the survival of the human species is of paramount importance. The manipulation of organisms is a development that enhances the chances of the human species surviving extinction in the face of many adverse factors. Other oppositions argue that modified organisms interfere with the ecosystem and may damage the natural environment. The environment has changed over the decades, so modified organisms cannot solely be blamed for this. Science can, however, devise ways of ensuring the changes in the environment are not excessively damaging. In conclusion, the field of organism modification is one of the greatest advancements in science and should be aggressively pursued to ensure its full benefits are realized.

Every year, the market for goods proliferates worldwide, while more manufacturers of various products, especially food, appear. This wide variety of products naturally raises suspicions about their quality. Goods made in the home country are often perceived as more reliable because they have passed the necessary certification and are subject to local laws, which cannot be said with certainty about foreign products. This is especially true in the context of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which are found everywhere today. The pace of their spread and the many controversies surrounding this topic have led to mandatory labeling of such products at the state level in the United States and other countries (Sunstein 1043). Unfortunately, this decision did not end the debate about the need for labeling for GMOs. However, from my perspective, mandatory labeling of all genetically modified foods for manufacturers not only protects citizens rights but also makes buying groceries from stores safer. This opinion essay aims to analyze the situation with GMOs and to defend this thesis.

GMOs are a controversial topic, to which there are very different approaches from scientific and social perspectives. Numerous scientific studies support their safety, while various media continue to spread myths about genetically modified organisms (Sunstein 1044). However, in this context, it seems to me more correct to consider the situation with GMO products from the point of view of morality and rights that people have. From my perspective, everyone has the right to know what exactly is in the food that they consume.

Food products these days are supplied from all over the world, and at the same time, may contain substances that are contraindicated for people with specific diseases. For this reason, there are labels on the products indicating their composition. In the case of, for example, people with lactose intolerance, it is not difficult to determine the presence of this component in a product. However, it is much more challenging to analyze the presence of GMOs due to their quantity. There are too many different elements in this category that it is not possible to learn. Therefore, first of all, simple labeling about the presence or absence of GMOs makes it easier for people to find the right products with specific components.

Although according to research, GMOs do not cause any harm to humans, every person still has the right to decide whether to consume genetically modified foods or not. This choice does not have to be dictated by health preservation requirements. Many other factors can influence such a decision, quite reasonably, without adherence to rumors or myths. The largest category of these is compliance with a persons personal beliefs. For example, some religions may prohibit a person from consuming such products, so the individual should be able to make an informed choice when purchasing a product. On the other hand, GMO foods can go against the vegetarian or vegan lifestyle.

There are many such examples, but their essence remains unchanged. If people can choose products based on the composition and the presence or absence of critical components, for example, lactose or gluten, then a similar opportunity should be realized in the framework of GMOs. No one has the right to force a person to consume any food or component, including hiding its presence, if the person does not want it for one reason or another. In this context, labeling is consistent with respecting the individuals personal right to choose whether to eat food with or without GMOs.

Finally, an additional factor in favor of such activities is the formation of a guarantor of product safety. Assigning a specific label to a product is a lengthy research and testing process. Similarly, for example, a marking is formed associated with a quality mark on a product or satisfaction of some standards. Consequently, the legislative need to indicate the presence of GMOs on a product is accompanied by the need to register the data of modified organisms. This, in turn, leads to a process of checking them for safety from a variety of points of view, which ultimately leads to the rejection of potentially harmful food. Thus, the introduction of labeling for GMOs is associated with the need to create particular quality standards that these products must meet. In this case, even if the product comes from an unusual place and does not inspire confidence at first glance, an official mark will help convince the buyer of the reliability of the product being sold.

In addition, the introduction of such labels may be helpful in the future. Measures to resolve this issue set a positive precedent that could benefit the entire society. Having achieved mandatory labeling of GMOs, the state and other official structures signal manufacturers of goods about the need to respect customers rights and comply with specific quality standards. A similar attitude can subsequently be extended to other elements since this will already be considered the norm.

Thus, labeling on the presence or absence of GMOs on a product meets buyers interests at several levels. First of all, this allows food manufacturers to respect the rights of people about access to information about the composition of products. This approach is already widely used in other contexts, but the diversity and prevalence of GMOs make finding and analyzing their composition difficult for the average person. Secondly, it will allow observing the human right to free choice following the existing ideology. Finally, the introduction of mandatory product labeling for manufacturers will create conditions for safer production through multiple checks and serve as a precedent for respecting human rights in the future. Therefore, in my opinion, GMO labels are essential to food manufacturing, should be widely introduced and strictly regulated.

Work Cited

Sunstein, Cass R. On Mandatory Labeling, With Special Reference to Genetically Modified Foods. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 165, no. 5, 2017, pp. 10431095.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are increasingly being used in aquaculture. These organisms possess a unique genetic combination that makes them uniquely suited to their environment (Kennedy, 2020). As a result, these organisms are easier and cheaper to produce, contain more and desirable nutrients, and require fewer pesticides. In addition, GMOs can combine various genetic traits by combining cells beyond the taxonomic family. Consequently, GMOs in aquaculture can have significant and beneficial outcomes to modern aquaculture.

Despite their notable benefits, GMOs pose significant risk to humans. Firstly, their genetic composition is alien to the human digestive system. Therefore, bodies might experience severe allergic reactions after consuming food products derived from these organisms. Secondly, these organisms might be resistant to antibiotics that are commonly used to treat ailments. As a result, excessive consumption of these products could result in the development of incurable infections and epidemics. Thirdly, these organisms could colonise the natural species due to their unique adaptation, which could cause them to become extinct.

Hence, the GMOs could wipe out the species that humans have always relied on for their nutrition. Finally, there is no comprehensive study on the long-term impact of these organisms on human health and the ecosystem. Consequently, the introduction of these species in aquaculture could pose unknown and serious risk to human health.

While GMOs in aquaculture promise several benefits, they also pose significant and unknown threats to human health and wellbeing. Currently, there is no comprehensive research on the long-term effects of these organisms on human health or the wider ecosystem. Moreover, products developed from these organisms could be resistant to conventional drugs used to treat the common ailments. Therefore, the products should not be used beyond experimental scale until comprehensive research is done to prove their safety.

Reference

Kennedy, M. (2020). Evidence-based pros and cons of GMO foods. Insider. Web.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms whose genes were altered in laboratory conditions. The process of creating a GMO involves taking specific DNA sequences out of one organisms genome and then putting them into another, which can be either related to unrelated to the former. This is mainly done to improve the quality of food available on the market. Almost any food can be genetically modified: meat, fruits, vegetables, etc. Many people argue that consuming products, which have GMOs may cause severe health issues. So far, there is no convincing evidence that there may be health consequences related to GMO consumption. Furthermore, the production of GMOs is more economically efficient, enabling farmers to produce more food at lower costs.

The main argument in favor of GMOs is that it is more resilient to various weather conditions and their production does not require farming methods that cause soil erosion. For instance, American farmers harvest almost triple the amount of genetically modified corn than Europeans (Uji 79). The reason behind this is that the corn is specifically modified to withstand herbicides, which American farmers use to destroy weeds whilst their European counterparts still rely on tiling (Uji 79). Traditional farming methods cause rapid soil erosion, which may shorten future crop harvests. Furthermore, since crops are more resilient, there would be no need to use lots of pesticides and fertilizers in their production (Hicks 68). The use of pesticides can negatively affect food quality and result in the loss of biodiversity around the farm fields (Agostini 2). Therefore, the usage of GMOs in crops helps to preserve the soil, avoid any food shortages, and preserve local biological diversity.

In conclusion, the implementation of GMO technologies into the production of food is beneficial in many ways. It helps to reduce costs and increase the quantities of harvested crops and, as a result, lower prices for its consumers. In addition, it does not require traditional farming methods, which cause soil erosion and, thus, lead to the loss of valuable farmland in regions like Europe.

Works Cited

Agostini, M. Gabriela, et al. Pesticides in the real world: The consequences of GMO-based intensive agriculture on native amphibians. Biological Conservation 241 (2020).

Hicks, Daniel J. Scientific Controversies as Proxy Politics. Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 33, no. 2, 2017, pp. 6772.

Ujj, Orsolya. European and American Views on Genetically Modified Foods. The New Atlantis, no. 49, 2016, pp. 7792.