Build-A-Child

     The human body has always intrigued me throughout life. Last month while searching the web, I came across a very interesting blog about genetic engineering. Genetic engineering also known as genetic modification is the process in which manipulation on an organism's genome is performed. It is quite impressive how much we have learned about the human genome over the past few years. The more knowledge I gain about genetic engineering, the more questions I have. Imagine a world where you handpicked which genetic characteristics your child would have. Do you think we should even have the option to choose which characteristics our children carry?

     The article "Human Enhancement And Sexual Dimorphism" written by Rob Sparrow takes an in depth look at the different reasoning behind choosing your children. He brings up the debate over human enhancement concerns that "the ethics of interventions designed to improve the lives of those who are 'enhanced'." The one consequence that stuck with me was the thought of the ratios between the sexes becoming too uneven could drastically change the quality of life. A good point he makes about the benefit of choosing your child is if the technology is available and you have a choice why not choose what you and your partner agree upon?

     After reading Sparrows article I found myself curious about where morals had a role in human enhancement.  Simon Outram's "Review of Allen Buchanan, Better than Human: The Promise and Perils of Enhancing Ourselves1" brings up many different moral challenging issues with genetic modification. A major issue with having such power is the ability to have self-control over what is morally right or wrong. Outram makes a good point when he says "Evolution is a form of genetic engineering, but evolution is "morally blind" to what it does." I definitely would agree, we are so intrigued by new technology that we don't pause and look at the possible effects on society. Outram talks about how expensive the procedure would end up costing in his article, and how only the rich would be able to afford it. Which would make it a world of inequality.

     Naturally after reading such an article based on the arguments against genetic manipulation, I needed to find some benefits to creating a perfect child. I came across the website bionetonline.org that covered the rights and wrongs for "creating designer babies". The ability to modify offspring would be extremely beneficial to those couples in which refuse to have children because of genetic diseases they carry. Preventing genetic diseases is something many have searched for throughout time and now it is possible. Should we let morals destroy this advancement or simply make laws against unethical behavior?

     David Wasserman and Adrienne Asch in the article "Selecting for Disability: Acceptable Lives, Acceptable Reasons" give great perspective of what might come if we decide to set limits on genetic engineering. The most important idea of setting limits is to balance the duty of physician and the patients’ rights. How would we decide what would be an unreasonably request versus a reasonable request when it comes to patients? Should all patients be treated differently? A good point made was that children no longer need to live with such disabilities. Should society have a choice as to whether our children should be born?

     I wanted to further explore the regulatory aspect of genetic engineering so I went to www.genome.gov for more info. In an article covering genetic enhancement I discovered that on September 11, 1997, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) met and could not decide whether it was ethical to perform experiments on healthy individuals so, the FDA regulates enhancements of any sort. They also state the lack of regulatory control the FDA has over genetic enhancements can become a problematic. How can one regulate something that is still being debated against and can be characterized in many different ways? This seems to be the ultimate issue at hand when it comes to genetic engineering, the lack of clarity.

     Should one be able to build-a-child? I have to admit, I am still on fence about the topic. My research has given me insight to the benefits and downsides of genetic engineering but yet I still lack the research of how this could impact the world as a whole. If we could decide as a whole what is ethical and what is not, I feel like this could greatly improve the quality of life, naturally extending it. If I were to continue my search I would like to see statistical research covering what society considered acceptable.

                                                                   Work Cited

SPARROW, ROB. "Human Enhancement And Sexual Dimorphism." Bioethics 26.9 (2012): 464-475. Academic Search Premier. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.

Wasserman, David, and Adrienne Asch. "Selecting For Disability: Acceptable Lives, Acceptable Reasons." American Journal Of Bioethics 12.8 (2012): 30-31. Academic Search Premier. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.

HOLTUG, NILS. "Equality And The Treatment-Enhancement Distinction." Bioethics 25.3 (2011): 137-144. Academic Search Premier. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.

Outram, Simon M. "Review Of Allen Buchanan, Better Than Human : The Promise And Perils Of Enhancing Ourselves." American Journal Of Bioethics 12.3 (2012): 43-45. Academic Search Premier. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.

http://www.bionetonline.org/english/content/db_eth.htm

S.R. Reflection

The most important thing I have gained from writing a summary response paper was every aspect, considering this was my first. I've learned that it is best to brain storm as many ideas that you grasp from the reading prior to writing. As a writer I have learned that organization is key to a successful paper. As a student, I learned that it is important to pay attention to the details defined in the assignment.The most challenging aspect of writing my summary and response paper was trying to summarize such a large article with only 250 words. I tried my best to condense my paper down but still struggled at the end when choosing which sentences to keep. The next time I write a summary down, I will be sure to read the instructions, prior to beginning my summary.

The quote written by Norman Maclean fits perfectly with my experience writing my summary and response paper. When I originally read my article, I had a pretty good idea of what my response would look like but as I typed it out things changed. The more I wrote my response, the more angles I realized I had to respond to. When I typed out my final copy, I couldn't help but check back and change little things here and there.

Double-Entry Log Entry for the article "The Tipping Point"

3 March 2014

Gladwell, Malcolm. “ TheTipping Point.” 2000. Back to the Lake. Ed. Thomas Cooley.2^nd ed. New York: Norton, 2012. 675-81. Print.

New Yorker feature article in journalistic style.

 Malcolm Gladwell develops a great theory of how epidemics, other than diseases, in every-day life stem but he even admits others have other explanations for the events taken place.

The 3 characteristics of a social epidemic                                                   

-I disagree with this theory because where is the science behind this

“the idea that epidemics can rise and fall in one dramatic moment  ̶  is the most important, because it is the principle that makes sense of the first two”                  

                       

- I would like to argue how this does not apply to all occurrences ( athletes, music)

In the article Gladwell talks about how human behavior plays a role in social epidemics                                                                         

                          

-he doesn’t explain what can cause us to react in that certain manner

His story depicting the crime rate in New York                                            

-poorly explained, uses angle of vision

"Within five years, murders had dropped..."                    

                                

-what happened in those five years. 

Gladwell states that others have different reasoning behind the crime epidemic in New York                

 -makes me question the theory’s logic

He ends with two questions   

                                                                   

-made me question if his theory made any logical sense