Genetic engineering is a widely discussed subject all over the world. There are arguments about where it should stop and where should it expand. What are your views on this? Should genetic engineering be closely monitored or prohibited in certain scientific areas? Or are there no limits to genetic engineering?
5/31/2010 04:04:16 am

If it is for the good of humanity, then no, it should not be prohibited in any way. Since its creation, science has required sacrifices whether it be living or nonliving. Plus, humans are still animals, why not use ourselves? People die everyday in war and conflict for nothing. So if squandering away lives in petty conflict is okay, why can't using humans for genetic engineering be okay?

Ryder Blade
5/31/2010 04:10:09 am

I think that it should be closely monitored in certain areas. Human genetic engineering can be helpful in curing/treating diabetes and other genetic diseases and might be able to make people stronger, smarter, etc. However, some people also view death as a medical condition so death could be a target for genetic engineering as well. If genetic engineering isn't closely monitored then one day in the future (wealthy) parents will be able to design their own children with enhanced traits, making them more superior to others.

Linda Lam
5/31/2010 04:12:24 am

If it benefits humanity without harming animals, then it should expand. If it creates harm for animals, then it should be prohibited. Genetic engineering should be closely monitored to prevent harmful experiments from occurring.

5/31/2010 04:17:20 am

My opinion on this matter is that, I would rather have this field of science be closely monitored rather than prohibited. My reason for this is because, you would still have some freedom opposed to having to stop at specific areas. If it were not to have a limit, things would be chaotic, since there would be no limits scientists could use there knowledge to create a new strain of disease or alter a simple bacteria to be harmful. Being closely monitored will act as rules and restrictions while, arguably, having the same freedom as having no limits and having a more in-depth analysis than being prohibited.

Jason Nguyen
5/31/2010 04:36:41 am

Genetic engineering has taken place from the beginnings of agriculture in the form of artificial selection. Genetic engineering opens up a new door to us in which we can better improve our lives. We genetically engineer plants to taste better, have more nutritional value, and to become resistant to all sorts of weather conditions and animals. After modifying the DNA of plants, the next step should be animals, which has already happened, where they manipulated a sheep's genetics to produce "spider silk" in the form of wool. What happens after that? Human genetic modification. This has not occurred yet due to question of stop-and-go. Where should it stop? Where should it expand? The best solution that I can come up with it that it should be expanding, but with limits. These limits are that it should not be used on humans WITHOUT genetics diseases or inheritable diseases. You can use it to stop Alzheimer from occurring but you can't use it for some other things. Genetic engineering should be free to expand when it comes to agriculture and bio-technologies but strictly monitored and limited when it comes to human modification because it can lead to deadly side-effects and falter human diversity due to cloning (Cloning is genetic engineering). All in all, genetic engineering should have not limits in certain scientific fields and be strictly monitored in others. It should prohibited in cosmetics, but otherwise, free to go anywhere it wants.

5/31/2010 05:03:02 am

Genetic engineering enables scientists to create plants, animals and micro-organisms by manipulating genes in a way that does not occur naturally.
These genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can spread through nature and interbreed with natural organisms, thereby contaminating non 'GE' environments and future generations in an unforeseeable and uncontrollable way.
Their release is 'genetic pollution' and is a major threat because GMOs cannot be recalled once released into the environment.Because of commercial interests, the public is being denied the right to know about GE ingredients in the food chain, and therefore losing the right to avoid them despite the presence of labelling laws in certain countries. Biological diversity must be protected and respected as the global heritage of humankind, and one of our world's fundamental keys to survival. Governments are attempting to address the threat of GE with international regulations such as the Biosafety Protocol.

Glowing Rabbit
5/31/2010 05:37:48 am

Over the past few decades, the number of scientists who have undergone years and years of schooling, dedicating their life to genetic engineering, have grown exponentially. You can't simply prohibit scientists from discovering cures to cancer or alternatives to surgeries. They have every right to continue on their studies if it potentially benefits the human race. As for Christians, manipulating genes does not equate defying God. We're trying to find new ways to preserve life for the benefit of mankind.

5/31/2010 06:29:37 am

well no genetic engineering should not be stopped if we can find cures for cancers and other at this current time incurable
diseases. and for those god fearing people that sad it goes against what god intended then why did he give us the means to discover it and use it to benefit and prolong the life of mankind?

My Vo
5/31/2010 01:34:50 pm

Genetic engineering is a touchy subject, as of any topic there is a long list of pros and cons. Clearly there needs to be a line drawn before a scenario similar to the film Gattaca occurs. Though truthfully, the possibilities of genetic engineering is limitless, that is when the idea becomes scary. I personally don't think that studies of sciences should be monitored as questioned, but rather limited with boundaries.

Nhi Nguyen
6/2/2010 02:13:06 am

Genetic engineering allows us to create crops that can grow under harsh conditions. This led to the growth in population within undeveloped countries. It should be closely monitored but it would also depend on our choice as humans to whether or not we can help others without harming future generations.

Abraham Mendoza
6/2/2010 02:04:08 pm

creationism vs darwism we dont know which is correct it is all based on our beliefs and even if we believe one is correct and another one isnt there is still alot of debate on the information of each due too ethics and morales of people


Leave a Reply.