Genetic Engineering
The Catalyst for Human Health
By: Ivan Montiel


Genetic engineering is not harmful -- on the contrary, it can produce new benefits in agriculture, disease, and health to assist the human race. One application of genetic engineering can result in better diabetic assistance. Insulin -- an essential agent for diabetics -- could only be obtained in tiny amounts from the pancreases of animals -- and even then, some diabetics were allergic to it. With the help from genetic engineering, insulin can be produced in immense quantities for diabetics.

The solution for the insulin problem was found in the early 1970’s (Bender 22). A bacterium called E. coli was discovered to have DNA in circular pieces -- or plasmids -- which meant that scientists could examine the components of DNA. With the utilization of enzymes, scientists split DNA into desired strands. Since the ends of these split strands easily form bonds with other pieces of genetic material, a new gene can be added to the circular plasmid -- adding a whole new function to the E. coli bacteria. This idea of instilling new genetic information into bacterium eventually led to the production of various crops -- corn, soybeans, and cotton -- with new traits to increase productivity.

Genetic engineering can assist in producing better crops. New biotechnology has provided tools for increased crop yields due to recent discoveries in DNA mapping. Most applications of biotechnology have involved major crops with genetically engineered traits such as herbicide-tolerance or insect-resistance (Cornejo 2). With these new technologies, agricultural productivity has risen; and with increases in production comes declines in food prices. Herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant plants allow greater simplicity and flexibility for farmers (Cornejo 2). With less management and time consumed by farm work, farmers can now benefit from additional income from off-farm activities. Thanks to these two developments, farmers have used less pesticide on genetically modified crops and have adopted soil conservation practices (Cornejo 2). Corn and cotton -- major insecticide users -- now require less management due to the insecticide-resistant gene that was genetically added to these crops (Encarta Encyclopedia 1). Now that DNA splicing was practical, steps in human development could occur.

Curing hereditary diseases, genetic engineering can alter the genetic structure of an individual for beneficial purposes. Through somatic cell gene therapy, cells of an individual are altered. “Somatic gene therapy alters only the genetic structure of the individual who receives it” -- the change is not passed down to the next generation (Gert 1). The premise that genetic engineering will affect the normal evolutionary course of nature is simply not true with somatic cell gene therapy. However, serious controversy arises in germ line gene therapy (Gert 1). “When it is possible not merely to add a gene, but to replace an unwanted gene, this gene will be completely removed” (Gert 2). When a dominant, unwelcome section of DNA must be replaced by a normal gene, the unwanted gene musty be completely removed so that its effects are removed. “Germ line gene therapy not only is permanent during the entire lifetime of the affected individual, the [modified gene] becomes inheritably transmitted to countless members of future generations” (Gert 3). However, “no evolutionary problem is caused by eliminating dominant genes that cause serious genetic disorders such as Huntington's disease” (Gert 2). With these new technologies, the thoughts of curing humans from sickness came closer to reality. All that was now needed was a way to track what the function of each segment of DNA.

Genetic engineering can improve the health of humans. By mapping the human genome -- the complete set of instructions for making a human being -- the world can benefit (Bender 95). Knowing every set of instructions within human's DNA can increase the understanding of human health; it can allow scientists to determine the cure for a genetic based illness. “This information will usher in the Golden Age of molecular biology” (Bender 96). With the mapping of the human genome, the entire process of which the human body works will unravel. Scientists could examine the code by which humans are programmed and identify maladies in one’s DNA, research how evolution forms through the changes within genes, or identify how essential proteins are formed for the maintenance of the body.

Opponents of genetic engineering deal with the concerns of eugenics’ safety, morality, and future effects. One problem with eugenics is that the future hazards are not known, nor researched. Scientists of genetic engineering do not concern themselves with the effects their research will have -- they concern themselves with the research itself. Even though genetic engineering has not caused a misfortune, it does not indicate that future risks do not exist. As the logical argument goes -- “past events do not portray future events.” Another argument arises with the use of knowledge obtained by eugenics. Will the technology be used to try to “control nature” (Bender 105)? Another thought is how this technology will affect the way people “think -- especially about ourselves” (Bender 107). Will the ability to “screen embryos” lead to a market in “buying and selling high grade embryos” where mothers are “contracted” (Bender 107)? These ideas all affect the morality of genetic engineering’s implications. “Since it is impossible to draw a non-arbitrary line that distinguishes positive from negative eugenics by defining what a genetic disorder is, genetic therapy may cause more serious maladies in future generations that it prevents for the present one” (Gert 2). Negative eugenics -- emphasizing the restriction on breeding for particularly "unfit” types -- has always been practiced. People with maladies were often restricted from producing offspring. In genetic engineering, however, the case is that certain alleles will be eliminated -- those alternate forms of a gene may prove useful in the future of the species. However, no alternate forms of a gene are eliminated. Many genetic maladies are caused by the lack of a dominate allele. If a dominate allele is added, then nothing is removed, and the malady is passed down to the individuals offspring. “In the case of sickle cell anemia, gene therapy for recessive disorders will work, even though the mutant and non-functional alleles remain” (Gert 2).

With the help of genetic engineering, bacteria can be modified to produce insulin. These bacteria are placed in large fermentation tanks -- which allow the bacteria to grow and multiply, since these modified bacteria are weakened to the extent that they cannot survive outside the laboratory environment. The bacteria are then harvested for the insulin proteins (Bender 23). Genetic engineering, and the several biotechnologies that stem from it, can prove beneficial to the health of humans and improve everyday life.



Works Cited
Bender, David L., and Bruno Leone. Genetic Engineering: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven, n.d.
Gert, Bernard. “Genetic Engineering: Is It Morally Acceptable?” USA Today Jan. 1999: 28-30. SIRS Researcher. ProQuest. Barry Goldwater High School Media Center. 11 Mar. 2008 <http://sks.sirs.com/>.
Grunwald, Micheal. “The Clean Energy Scam.” TIME 7 Apr. 2008: 40-45.
Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia. CD-ROM.
United States. Agriculture Department. The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States. By Jorge Ferandez-Cornejo and Marggriet Caswell. April 2006. SIRS Researcher. ProQuest. Barry Goldwater High School Media Center. 14 Mar. 2008 <http://sks.sirs.com/>.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 25 2008, 9:29 pm by A_of-s_t.

Better way to respond: read that yourself and summarize it. Then provide a link to that article.

I doubt I'd find a link if I wrote it. And, if you want a summary, read the first and last paragraphs. And, I think I have read it about 100 times since I did, in fact, write it.

Good point. Then surely, you can use better formatting.

this is already seen in chickens. Believe it or not, they used to be able to fly. but people kept breeding the fattest, and the plumpest so thats all we have left

he is actually right, not about justifying Hitler's actions, but about the "bad" or "defective" genes staying the the human gene pool. The human race is unchallenged, no longer is it survival of the fittest. the majority (not all) of humanity lives till their ATLEAST 50... what your left with is an idiocracy. I'm not going to create an "All encompassing" always, but most of the time people who are ridiculously stupid get to live... Unfortunately.

BTW - idiocracy is a movie, it talks about what i was just talking about. great movie XD (its a comedy )

Who said(source)? Chickens can't fly due to bone density, not weight. Unless if they gained bone density to support weight then that might make sense...

well, to be honest sir im not to sure who found this out... it is in my biology book for apbio, i dont know the text book author off the top of my head. If what you said is true, maybe the existance of the increase in fat creates a higher bone densisty...

Well in that case, America is leading themselves to high bone density. Maybe airplanes will stop working w/ Americans on board?

Well, when you refer to AntiSleep's science chart, he places "taught in science class" as one of the second to last steps. Though, in several cases it precedes the "predictions verified" step. I've found nearly everyone of my teachers has taught, in more than one case per teacher, their own scientific hypotheses as science.

@ A_of-s_t,
There really isn't anyway to prove or disprove it either way. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion until a truth is found AND proved, not just accepted. As for my opinion, I think that it's a large possibility that scientist(or someone w/ common sense) will link increase in cancer/disease/something-awful to increase in agricultural gene alteration.
(ps, using the non-quote tactic was a great way to get 100's of mins wasn't it?)

Keeping these defective maladies in the gene pool is actually GOOD for evolution. It increases variaty which it was Darwin's Evolution is based upon. If anything, removing these genes would be our species' downfall.


EDIT:
Not really. I only got 10 minerals, and I sent those to devilesk to show that I didnt post for minerals. I actually think its easier to read unquoted.

DOUBLE EDIT FTW:
O RLY? I don't see any reason to link a rise in cancer to a rise in genetic engineering. I do believe that the more people there are, the higher the amount of people get cancer. As the population increased, we began to modify genes. Your statement, could in essance, be a cum hoc ergo propter hoc. I'd be very careful when you say statements like that.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 26 2008, 5:23 am by A_of-s_t.

I did not once say we should remove negative genes.
I said that we should not help them remain in the gene pool, as is natural.

I prefer post hoc ergo propter hoc. Anyways, in these events of coexistence, until you have disproved it, it is not a fallacy. Like back when x-rays came out, people went nuts x-raying everyone and their dog, even for buying shoes. Then we found out that there was a dramatic increase in cancer. Post hoc ergo propter hoc? No, because not only did the coexist, they actually correlated. A rise in population would most definately increase cancer as well, but I'm saying maybe more of it than needed is due to agriculture. Not just the gene mutations, but the pesticides and other lovely sciences involved that physically alter the composition of the food.

My whole point being, in a broad sense, humans tend to follow this cycle; be overly enthusiastic, suppress possible negatives, develop something, use, overuse, abuse, discover the negatives, fix the science, wish they had waited until they perfected it cause they can't fix the people it affected(<--IMO, but it's been seen throughout history ie. the x-ray). Maybe I'm getting too personal about the subject cause my gpa died from leukemia stimulated by 2 x-rays a day for several months, back when they didn't think it was bad.