Proposal- Genetic Modification

The topic I intend to address is, "whether or not we should have the option to choose which characteristics our children carry?" The battle between benefits and ethics is what is stopping us from genetic advancements.  This is a very important issue that needs to be addressed because of the multiple benefits it can deliver.  The major benefit, having the ability to “get rid” of a gene carrying a disorder that causes a less satisfactory life. For example, no one would consider a child with Angelman syndrome to be a positive thing, with genetic modification this could be avoided. It would not only benefit the child but also the parent’s mental state and finances over time. Another benefit, many are excited to hear about is the ability to choose our offspring’s sex. One of the downfalls is people could also use this technology to “enhance” their child to a “superior being”. These enhancements can be targeted towards a child’s height, intelligence, strength and more (Holtug 1). Many argue that “we” as a society would not be able to control ourselves over having the ability to enhance children. Simon M. Outram said it best, “Evolution is a form of genetic engineering, but evolution is “morally blind” to what it does.” We tend to abuse things, without recognition.  I believe possible outside readers would include other peers interested in human genome. My position on the topic is still undecided but I am leaning more towards it not being an alright option for parents to have a say to which genetic genes their children carry. My introduction will include my thesis statement along with some basic knowledge on the topic that lead me to research the issue. I believe I will continue my paper by discussing the benefits of genetic modification versus the downside because that is where I am leaning towards and I think it will help build into my conclusion.  The thought of the ratios between sexes becoming too uneven is concept that Sparrow addresses in his article, “Human Enhancement And Sexual Dimorphism” and I think it would help me support the downside of choosing ones characteristics. The controversy between morals and justice is something I want to make a main point. I was considering including all the different questions that arise from research and peer reviews of the information. What would happen if ratios between sexes became too uneven? How much power should one have in medical decisions? What makes something a genetic treatment versus genetic enhancement? Who determines such decisions? I would like to make some of these questions a main topic to discuss. My research didn’t lead me to many solutions for the issues but I did find one that sticks, adoption. Yes, it is amazing that technology has advanced so far that we can remove a genetic disease before birth but people with genetic diseases in their family history also have the chance for adoption. Not only would this be less costly and beneficial to many suffering children globally but it is also way less controversial and logically sound. I would assume many would argue that a child not having a disability would live a better life but I could refute it by saying a child with a disability’s life is still worth living. I would also argue that considering how costly it is how one would decide which disorders are considered “genetic therapy” vs “genetic enhancements.

 

 

 

 

Work Cited

Baird, Stephen L. "Designer Babies: Eugenics Repackaged Or Consumer Options?(Cover                Story). Technology Teacher 66.7 (2007): 12-16. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21               Apr. 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.

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.

    

 

                       

 

 

Room to Improve

The most important thing that I learned from writing a synthesis essay were the strategies for shaping the analytical section of the essay. I learned as a writer that I still have plenty room to grow. Through this process I learned how many elements one topic can have. As a student, I realized how much time needs to set aside for great research.

The thing I struggled with the most was trying to choose which research to include in my essay. I  believe choosing such a new topic made it a little more difficult. There were so many things I wanted to include but couldn't because of word count. The next time I will pick a less complex issue to discuss.

Peer review, this time around gave me that "ah! now I see" moment. It made me realize how much I have grown, but also how much I still need to grow. Reading my peers' papers also helped me to see how many angles I could address my topic. The biggest benefit of all was seeing how well my peers gave examples of topic sentences following the thesis because it is something I need to improve on.