Genetic engineering is a leap towards a perfect future. It is, according to safe-food.org, a “laboratory technique used by scientists to change the DNA of living organisms.” However and unfortunately, genetic engineering is condemned by many people because they argue that genetic engineering “lessens the quality” of genetically modified units (livestock, crops, etc.). In an area where food is scarce, who cares about quality? The person benefiting from genetic engineering would be happy that she/he has food to eat. Famine has been one of the leading causes of death in many areas in Africa as well as in other countries. It is a serious issue that must be addressed. In my honest opinion, genetic engineering is the key to solving this issue that has been present for years. Famine in Africa is, according to Frances D’Souza and Jeremy Shoham in their article “The spread of famine in Africa: avoiding the worst,” is “due to a combination of events which include successive years of drought and crop failures.” In more fortunate areas, we can genetically modify livestock to yield greater amounts of meat, and crops to produce in greater numbers. This would increase the amount of food available in the entire world.
Even if Genetic engineering does reduce the quality of the modified unit, production is increased dramatically. The increase in production will ultimately benefit a great number of people, possibly diminishing the era of famine in most areas. If such a solution can exist in exchange a slight degrading in the quality of the food, why not embrace it? Such a basis for opposing Genetic engineering is not only ridiculous but also quite selfish. Those who truly believe that Genetic engineering should not be incorporated in livestock and in agriculture because of its effects on the quality think only of themselves, and not about those who yearn for food on a daily basis. They do not stop and think about how this will affect individuals distanced from them in a third world country. The modern countries have been blessed with knowledge; I believe that it is only fair for us to spread the benefits that genetic engineering has to offer. Genetic engineering is not only limited to just increasing productions, but it also opens doors of opportunities for individuals who are prone to being born with genetic diseases. Gene theraphy, as described by buzzle.com, is “a method or therapy in which nucleic acids are transferred to the somatic cells, in order to treat a particular disease. Over expressing the proteins or repairing defective genes are two possible treatments in gene therapy.” This allows Genetic Engineers to correct defective genes, yielding in perfectly normal children. After correcting the defective genes that would have otherwise caused genetic diseases, the individual would be granted a chance to lead a normal life. Genetic engineering has limitless possibilities, and through more research, we’ll be able to further understand its wide scope of benefits for us. We’re going back to the root of life: DNA.
While there are indeed risks to and dangers to genetic engineering, we can easily control them. It should not be too difficult to reserve specific areas much like a “confined field trial” used to “provide researchers with important information on environmental interactions and agronomic performance of crop in a safe and contained manner” (Linacre). We can confine modified units to certain area so that the modified genes do not spread from one organism to another. There is a case called “favism” that prompts some people to become allergic to modified units, but with further research, surely we’ll find solutions to this problem. Despite this problem, the extra food should still be available to those who are able to consume them without difficulties. Certain modified units do not invoke this allergic reaction, so these should be produced in greater masses in order to further expand the needs that genetic engineering satisfies. Something is better than nothing.
An ethical argument against genetic engineering is the claim that genetic engineers are playing the role of “God” by “performing tasks that are reserved for God and God alone” (Bohlin). While that is indeed quite true, one must realize that anything in the medical field lurks around this realm. Doctors have saved countless of lives. If God decided that a particular person should die from an illness, are we not defying his work by curing the corresponding illness? If our society was destined to be this way, our planet (God’s work) should not suffer from pollution, deforestation, etc. from man’s modern creations. As Dr. Ray Bohlin points our in his article “Genetic Engineering”, “This world is not as God intended.” In a nutshell, in our society, there is no basis to attacking genetic engineering in a religious or ethical sense because most of the things that we do defy the very nature of this world. The effects of pollution are like having the Earth show allergic reactions to our modern machinery. Genetic engineering and our modern technology alters the natures of many things, but what is the logic in embracing one and not the other despite the issues that both of them present?
--Vladimir Sabado
No comments:
Post a Comment