GMK Genetically Modified Kids

From John Harris and Marcy Darnovsky, “Pro and Con” We could be able to engineer children with immunity to certain diseases. However the likely hood of finding two partners who are able to produce such unaffected embryos. And there would be no guarantee that the child would bear the traits of being immune to whatever disease they would be trying to avoid. The social factor could also be devastating since the most desired traits would be acceptable within. children leaving those without those traits as outcasts. This could lead to more discrimination, inequality, and conflict described by Marcy Darnovsky

I don’t think that we should use gene altering on humans. I believe that we should keep things all natural, as it should be. The possible risks that arise with gene altering could be devastating to humankind. Quite Frankly  I don’t think we know enough about it to even ask that question. I also believe that the process would be very expensive. Only something the rich could be able to afford. This would lead to a generation dominated by what could be genetically perfect rich children. Perhaps that’s looking too far into it. But its likely to happen. The only way I could see us using this technology is to prevent children from being born with some kind of ailment, or disability. This is possible but it does have risks and flaws of on its own. I believe that we should wait until its 100% safe and a guarantees results. If CRISPR technology had the capabilities to do such a thing I would fully support its use. Aside from that, I don’t think the payout would be worth the risk. It is children’s lives we are working with here after all.

Leave a Reply