Dangers Outweigh Benefits of Genetic

¶ … Dangers outweigh Benefits of Genetic

Do Dangers of genetic engineering Outweigh Benefits?

Perhaps no other subject in recent years has caused such a myriad of debates and controversy than genetic engineering. Not only is the general public divided in opinions concerning the benefits and risks, but there is division among academics as well. At issue is the potential for life-saving techniques, the arrest and/or cure of life-threatening illnesses and disabilities, and the overall improvement of human health around the globe with the implementation of genetic modified food crops. During the past decade, there has been much media attention given to celebrity endorsements of bio-engineering techniques such as stem cell research that has the potential to aid in a number of diseases and injuries, such as Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's disease, birth defects, and spinal cord injuries, to name but a few. Stem cell research is generally opposed by conservative and religious groups that abhor the use of fetuses for research purposes, and fear the technology will produce less than valuable standards. Others fear genetically altered food may result in severe health risk in the future. However, it seems that the benefits of genetic engineering outweigh any potential dangers.

Generally speaking, major technological advances have the ability to fundamentally change the social, economic, political and legal landscapes of those who adopt the benefits of innovation (Adams 2002). The appropriate balance between the benefits and risks of medical intervention in individual cases is a decision made within the confines and confidentiality of a doctor-patient relationship, while risk management strategies are institutionalized in the form of legal rules, including professional ethics, negligence and fiduciary duty (Adams 2002). Advances in biotechnology have important applications to the core demographic concerns of human reproduction and longevity (Welsh 2005). These concerns raise a number of difficult ethical issues, yet in the debate over these issues, the voices of demographers and other social scientists are nearly silent (Welsh 2005). Biotechnology has the potential to positively affect human health, however, in order for health care professionals to communicate the issue effectively with their patients and clients, emphasis should be place on increasing communication through peer-reviewed journals and educational programs (Snider 2005). Perhaps the most dramatic payoff concerning this progress is the development of genetic tests for predisposition to various diseases and functional impairments (Cohen 2001). Tests already have been developed to identify the presence of several hundred particular alleles or polymorphisms that are linked to diseases such as Huntington's Disease, cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell trait, Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, and breast and colon cancer (Cohen 2001).

Many individuals are concerned that the new genetics will somehow force upon them unwanted self-awareness, sometimes called the "nocebo" effect, and prefer to remain in a state of medical or genetic ignorance for fear that knowledge will reveal the presence of a predisposition for a condition that is incurable or preventable only by resort to costly and difficult measures (Cohen 2001).