Read the following article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9480372/Genetically-engineering-ethical-babies-is-a-moral-obligation-says-Oxford-professor.html
Answer the following questions related to the article:
1. Professor Julian Savulescu is the editor-in-chief of what journal? Does this give him the authority to make the claims that he makes in this article?
2. What sort of genetic markers does Savulescu claim should be screened?
3. Do you agree with his argument that these genetic traits can create ethically superior humans?
4. What is eugenics? When did the science become unpopular?
5. If this science becomes possible, and scientists can create fetuses that are genetically modified, should parents have the choice to do this for their children? Explain your answer.
6. Savulesco claims that screening for these genetic markers is the same as screening for Down's Syndrome and particular cancer predispositions. Do you agree? Explain your answer.
1 - Journal of Medical Ethics
ReplyDelete2 - Things like violence and alcoholism,
3 - Yes and no. We all want the world to be a better place, but you can't make someone into something their not.
4 - Eugenics is the social movement claiming to improve the genetic features of human populations through selective breeding and sterilization. It became unpopular during the holocaust.
5 - Parents should most definitely have a choice in how their children come out. Me personally, I don't feel like anyone should think highly enough of themselves to think that they can alter what God has created. Yes all parents want their kids to be good kids, however that isn't how every child ends up. Independence is another big thing, how are you going to give your son the "Be A Man" talk, when he won't even be the man he was destined to be if you go through with this? I feel like this whole concept is a joke and any parent that agrees to it doesn't deserve to be a parent. Children are God's gift, who are you to toil with God's gift.
6 - Scientifically speaking, yes it is the same, However, this isn't the same thing. There's a positive and negative to every situation. Keeping people from getting cancer? That's definitely a positive. I wish they would've had this kind of technology when my sister was still developing I probably would still have her. On the other hand, I wouldn't have wanted those doctors picking and probing out the wrong thing, because then my sister wouldn't have been my sister. Guess its just a battle of whats morally right.
Abbey Kate Gregory
ReplyDelete1.Medical Ethics Journal; Yes because most of it is just his opinion, and I am pretty sure journals are just a persons pinion on things.
2. personality flaws: potential alcoholism, psychopathy & disposition to violence
3.NO, I think its impossible to create an ethically superior human. Its our choices that make us. who we are ethically, not our genes. If we blame all of our problems on genes, we wont be able to hold anyone responsible for wrongdoings. (btw this topic is the situation that lead to factions in the Divergent series)
4.Eugenics is the science of improving human population by controlling breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics;unpoular when adopted by the Nazis
5.I think it should be illegal or only used in preventing cancers or mutations that run in the family; but if it is legal then parents should NOT be forced to be screened because it would be going against some families religions.
6.No its not the same.Personality flaws such as"potential alcoholism"do not compare to the seriousness of cancer. I don't even think it makes a difference if they screen for stupid flaws in personality because even if they try to fix them its not going to work.
MacKenzie Jones
ReplyDelete1) Readers Digest; he's not a scientist so no not really
2) Personality markers
3) I'm really not sure because, I'm not by any means a scientist, but then again they don't know 100% how it will turn out.
4) The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.
5) Well yes because its THEIR child, and usually how you raise your child determines several of their personality traits.
6) No not at all because those are mental/health conditions they cant help. If everyone was genetically engineered I feel like it would somewhat turn out like the novel/movie The Giver.
Abbye Blocker
ReplyDelete1. Professor Julian Savulescu is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics. It does give him the authority to make the claims that he makes in this article because he is the one who edits the article before it is published.
2. Genes should be screened because it has been discovered that genes have a significant influence on personality and certain genetic markers in the embryo show future characteristics.
3. I do not think that you could change someone's genetic traits just to alter their personality to what some scientist thinks is "superior".
4. Eugenics was a social movement that used selective breeding and sterilization to improve the genetic features of human populations. It became unpopular when it was adopted by Nazi Germany.
5. If this science became possible I do believe that parents should have the choice to screen their children but it should be by choice, not force.
6. No, I do not think it is the same as screening for Down's Syndrome and particular cancer predispositions because you are screening your unborn child for a characteristic you do not want. You are being given the opportunity to make the embryo "perfect" personality wise when it could possibly bring health issues or complications.
;Lynsey Simpson:
ReplyDelete1.Journal of Medical Ethics, yes because he is the head of the company and knows what he's talking about.
2. Personality flaws, potential alcoholism, psychopathy, and disposition to violence.
3. No, because if they are exposed to us 'lower class' then they're bound to turn out just like us.
4. Eugenics is being able to find faults in a body before it is born, and it fell out of the loop when the Nazi's began to use it.
5. Yes, it shouldn't be forced on everyone with a child to genetically improve them, because it's contradicting what The Bible says.
6. No, because doctors screen for those things because they are fatal illnesses, being a psychopath is not an illness. These types of things can't be treated, because the doctors can't follow their genetic masterpiece into a bar where it begins to drink and become just like the rest of us 'lesser' humans. You cant walk into a doctor's office and begin to get Down's Syndrome, because its a genetic illness that is hard to fix, and becoming an alcoholic just can't be fixed.
Sydney Emmons
ReplyDelete1. Journal of Medical Ethics. No, just because he writes for a medical journal, it dosent give him the authority to make some of his claims.
2. Like bad traits such as alcoholism, violence, and psychopathy.
3. Well, i am not positive that this will turn out like how he intends it to, but if it does, then I think this could be pretty cool. Less violence, and bad morals; More happiness, and good morals for our future.
4. A movement that caused people to believe that you could make superior humans by selective breeding and sterilization. This idea became unpopular when the Nazi's adopted it.
5. I definitely think that if this becomes possible then parents should have a choice. Because honestly i kinda want to do this for my future kids. It is not harming them, it is only helping by stopping genetic disorders and harmful traits.
6. I think its a bit different because genetic disorders are things that will effect your childs life a lot. But genetic markers are just little things that can improve your childs life, but if you dont change genetic markers, then its not as of a big deal as genetic disorders are. Because disorders could be a serious illness, whereas markers are just personality traits that arent ideal.
Kayla Fincher
ReplyDelete1. the medical ethics journal. yes since he is the editor and chief of a medical journal and the article is a concern of the medical community
2.genetic markers I the embryo suggesting future characteristics
3.yes I believe it could create a "ethically" superior human race but I don't believe that this sort of thing should be done
4. a social philosophy making and improving human genetic traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of people with desired traits. when it was starting to be used by the Nazis
5.if this becomes possible then yes they should have a choice in weather or not they want there children to be genetically modified it is there kid they should be able to choose what they want for them
6. no because down syndrome and cancer are completely different than anger or behavioral issues. I see why you would want to lessen the chances of cancer and down syndrom but you shouldn't want to change your child's personality.
Makenzie Taylor
ReplyDelete1) the Journal of Medical Ethics; I believe it gives him the authority. He should be an expert on this topic.
2) Genes that have a significance influence on personality; genes that determine future characteristics.
3) I do think that they will create ethically superior humans. But science is not perfect, so there will probably be many risks. But this could be beneficial. If they see a birth defect, they could get rid of it.
4) The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. A method of improving the human race. It became unpopular because of the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis.
5) Maybe. Specifically, if a child is expected to be born with a birth defect. In that case, genetic modification can take place so the child won't have to suffer a life caused by that birth defect.
6) I agree. They are pretty much determining the same defects. It is telling parents what their child will be like.
Josie Parham
ReplyDelete1- Journal of Medical Ethics, and I guess yes because he is the editor in chief so he decides what goes into the article and he does have the freedom of speech although i do think this is a very big topic and its illegal.
2- Personality
3- No i think we should leave humans be, theres no telling what would happen if we went in and tried to perfect people because there is no perfect person and theres a reason for that.
4- The science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase desirable characteristics. When the Nazis adopted it.
5- YES, not everyone wants their child to be altered your flaws are what makes you you. I definitely think the parent should have a choice theres so many things that could go wrong and in some ways you would be losing individuality and genetic diversity if you didn't give them a choice.
6- No, your aren't screening for a disease your changing your child's personality and making it "better" your taking out its flaws.
Leigh Davis
ReplyDelete1.The Journal of Medical Ethics, personally i do not think that he has the right authority to say what he says.
2. Genetic markers in the embryo
3.No, I don't think that the embryo can be screened and the traits can change a human into one who is ethically superior.
4. Eugenics is the study of methods of making genetic qualities better by selective breeding. It became unpopular in the mid 2000's
5. I think that if it does become popular at some point in time that the parents should absolutely have the choice to do it or not to do it. They chose to have the child they should get the choice of how they want to continue with them and whether they want to do that to them.
6.No, I disagree because scanning for a certain disease or cancer or something like that that could impair them as a person or be fatal sooner or later is way different than changing an unborn baby to something that you want. By having a baby you're choosing to not know what all is going to happen in the future. It's not right to try and change is so that the baby will satisfy all of your wants and needs. That's ridiculous and selfish for you to get to choose the future of your baby before it is even born. It's not the same nor is it right in the least bit.
Carter Billings 3rd
ReplyDelete(1 He is editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics. It does give him an advantage of prior knowledge, but declaring something ethical needs to be decided by individuals.
(2 He says markers in embryos should be screened to show future behavior.
(3 I do not agree with his statement on ethnically superior humans.
(4 Eugenetics is the attempt to make superior human species through selective breeding and sterilization. It became unpopular when the Nazi party attempted to use it.
(5 Yes, I think with the technology that people, by choice, can do this. It will fall upon the parents for the decision to run the risk of this, but yes, they should be able to choose.
(6 I do not think that these are the same. Cancer and Down Syndrome are things that change the course of someone's whole life in a different way then their personality would change it. They are just not the same.
Troy Banks
ReplyDelete1. The Journal of Medical Ethics, and I would think so.
2. He said to give parents the option to screen out traits that would make their intelligence less pronounced and more violent.
3. Of course. Genetics are the building blocks for things such as ethics, and if everyone has a strong foundation and are nurtured well growing up, then we would be living in a much better world.
4. The act of sculpting genetic features through means of genetic manipulation, selective breeding, and sterilization. It became unpopular when the Nazis attempted it.
5. Absolutely! If parents wish to make their children's lives better in the simplest way, then by all means let them. Freedom of choice is a very important factor in today's society.
6. Yes. It is the same process, just different genes are being targeted.
Morgan Burroughs
ReplyDelete1) The Journal of Medical Ethics. Yes, because everyone has a right to convey their thoughts on whatever they see fit. The fact that he is a professional on the subject just gives him more credibility.
2) Potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence
3) Yes, I happen to agree with his arguement. If we could see any mental/personality disorders (like alcoholism, depression, anxiety, etc.) we could theoretically genetically alter the embryos so they didn't have these disorders, and there would be a good chance that the ethics in humans will grow exponentially.
4) Eugenics is the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. It became unpopular when people found out that it had been adopted by the Nazis.
5) Yes, they should. Every parent should have the choice of what their child is like. Some traits that society might find undesirable, the parents might want their children to have. And if they were forced to get their child genetically changed to conform to society, the children could lose some of the most important traits that make them unique.
6) I believe the concept is the same, but as far as actually getting the undesired traits out, it might be more complicated, medically speaking anyway. I feel like this is not the same morally though. Checking for things likedowns syndrome and cancer predispositions is for a physical health purpose. And although there are some things, such as alcoholism and anxiety disorders, that might benefit someone of they were removed from their genes as an embryo, some things should just be left alone. It depends on how the person handles their thoughts that interpret how their genes will effect them. For example, maybe someone has a predisposition to violence, but instead of actually hurting people they started writing about murder and became a famous novelist. But they wouldve never known about his talent if they had been genetically modified.
Alex Turner 3rd period
ReplyDelete1. Journal of Medical Ethics. I think it gives him an opinion but authority I don't think so, human lives are not an experiment to tamper with the way we are is because it was up to genetics not what a scientist and my parents wanted me to become like.
2. Genetic markers in embryo
3. Yes, I do agree but I don't support it.
4. A social movement claiming to improve the genetics features of humans. When the nazis adopted it.
5. I think that parents should have the choice because it should be their decisions on whether they would like to genetically alter/enhance their child.
6. Yes I do agree it doesn't seem to be any different.
ReplyDeleteGrace Singley
1. Journal of Medical Ethics. I feel like he has the choice to make these claims but really I don't think he should have the authority because God made everyone a certain way. Scientists shouldn't try to change that.
2. Genetic markers that are in the embryo
3. Yes, I believe that it could be created but I don't think it's a great idea that I'd support.
4. A social movement claiming to improve the genetic features of human population. It became unpopular when the nazis started using it.
5. I guess parents should have this option if they wanted....... But I don't know why parents would want to change how their child was suppose to be made.
6. No, that is trying to prevent them from the disease but this genetic markers thing is trying to change someone's whole personality and how they were made to be.
Olivia LeComte
ReplyDelete1. The journal of medical ethics, and yes because be is a professional.
2. Traits for violence and psychopathic characteristics
3. No
4. Teying to make perfect or superior humans.
5. No, it would create a ra ce of superior humans. This would cause lots of discrimination and problems.
6. I dont agree because creating emotionally superior humans is a huge problem. This would cause more problems then it would fix.
1. The telegraph; yes
ReplyDelete2. Your children
3. No because things can go wrong
4. Where you can look at your embryos genes ; around 2000
5. I think the ultimate decision is the parents and theirs only
6. No because they are ultimately trying to create an artificial perfect child and I disagree with that because of my beliefs
Tyler Dempsey
ReplyDeleteI The Journal of Medical Ethics. Sure
II Future characteristics
III Not at all
IV The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. When Nazis advocated it for their Aryan race.
V No. We shouldn't play god. Look to pop. media for why we shouldn't. (Jurassic Park, daresay the new Call of Duty trailer, etc.)
VI No, he's just morphing the good in favor of the bad. Those two things are completely different and he knows it. As i said before, we shouldn't play god (in this sense).