Imagine a world where diseases and disorders were almost nonexistent. Every human being had desirable traits and was perfect in every sense. Going to the doctor’s office for being sick and not making the school sports team because you were not physically up to par will become a things of the past. Advancements in technology are happening at a rapid pace, and these scenarios may just be the reality in the future due to genetic engineering. The Oxford English dictionary defines genetic engineering as the alteration of the genome of an organism by laboratory techniques, especially by the insertion, alteration, or removal of a gene. Everyone will be utilizing this technology to better their children and grandchildren.
Humans have already managed to modify animals, such as the cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1996, as well as plants and other crops. Genetic engineering is one of the most controversial topics in science today because of the arguments regarding whether or not this process is ethical. It is a universal idea that a person is born the way they are and little can be done to change that. As time passes, people will probably reject this idea and genetic engineering will be something that is needed to have a healthier population.
The article "The Hazards of Developmental Gene Modification" discusses the negative consequences that may come with genetic engineering. With any technology, there are risks, and it is important to be literate about how the technology works. It states that there is always room for human error. There could be a "miscalculations" in where a gene is supposed to go. You could possibly end up with a baby with three eyes or only one leg. The author discusses the ethical issues as well and argues that replacing a kidney does not change the "nature" of a person, but replacing a gene does. This article is credible, as the author, Dr. Stuart Newman, has a PhD in this field and is a professor. This shows that he is knowledgeable on genetic engineering. A flaw with this source is that the author cites the Council for Responsible Genetics as a source, which is the website on which the article is published. That raises suspicion for biases. Also, Newman frequently uses specialized jargon. It proves he is knowledgeable on the subject, but simultaneously creates a disconnect from anyone who is not in the targeted audience of the scientific community. My other sources focus of what good genetic engineering can do, and this article is the opposite. This will provide another perspective in my essay.
Photo credit: http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--R7zimfiq--/18i2cwilgs7n4jpg.jpg