1. Introduction:Raising awareness on theissue
The adventof the geneticengineeringof humanembryosisfraughtwithpossibilities and
dangers. Possibilitiesinclude improvementsinthe well-beingand/orcapacitiesof people.Asfor
dangers,there are concernsaboutunforeseenenvironmental consequencesandthe lossof
humankind’ssoul shouldunrestricteduse andunreservedadulationof thistechnology morphintoan
irrational,obsessiverace forbecoming“super-human”. The growingaffordabilityof thistechnology
givesthisissue broadsocial importance –itis notmerelyahypothetical and/oracademicquestion.
Impactanalysis (partone):Thepositiveand the negative
Geneticengineeringforhumanshasbecome more affordable,thusallowingmedical
professionalsandparentstoconsiderthe “editing”of children’sDNA priortobirth.Inshort,people can
change theirkids’DNA and,presumably,dosoforthe better.The improvementsgenerallyinclude
disease reductionandheightenedintellectualandphysical abilities. The benefitsof suchatechnological
advance for people’slives,personallyandsocially,are undeniable. More precisely,benefitsinthe area
of healthinclude the reductionof genetically inheriteddiseasessuchasDownsyndrome and Tay-Sachs
disease.The resultwouldbe fewerindividualswithgeneticdisorders.Likewise,geneticengineeringmay
not justworkas an advance cure, butalsoas a wayto furtherdevelophumanabilities,mindandmuscle
alike. Afterall,whodoesn’twanttohave “smarter”children withlittle ornochance of sufferingfrom
genetic,andperhapslife-crippling,diseases?The intellectual,economic,andhealthbenefitsof genetic
engineering,then,are clearandlastingforsociety.
Yet there are some risksassociatedwith suchanuncritical view of geneticengineering.One risk
isthe compromise of ourhumanityshouldwe use geneticengineeringinawantonmatter.Such a
concernhas beenechoedwithinsociety.It’s been framedinvariousways. Some religious
fundamentalists,whochampionsociallyandpolitically“conservative” perspectivesatthe pulpitandthe
ballotbox alike,warnusthat the use of biotechnologysuchas geneticengineering,cloning,andstem
cell researchistantamounttoplayingGod.Thus, accordingto them, geneticengineeringmayleadto
more harm than good – ultimatelyanevil.Some environmentalists,ina differentvein,mayconceivably
reach a similarconclusion.Tothem,thistype of engineeringcanirreversiblyalterthe humangene pool,
justas the same mayhave appliedforthe modificationof animal andplantgenes. The consequences,
then,while conceivablyhavingabeneficial side,mayalsoprove chaoticandevendisastrousforthe
ecosystem.
Othernegative aspectsincludethe propagationof the fantasythatgeneticsare adetermining
factor inone’slife.Forinstance,before the developmentandgreateraffordabilityof genetic
engineering,one maybe “cursed” forlife due to“bad” genetics.Butwithsuchengineeringtechniques,
one can avoidsuch a fate.All the same,however, inthe publicperception,geneticswillstill have a
fundamental role inthe developmentof a,or the,“good life”.The problemisn’tnecessarilywithgenetic
engineeringperse,butratherwithpeople viewingthistechnologyasacure-all,anultimate solution,
whenitis not.
Impactanalysis(parttwo): Additionalinformation &research
It wouldbe interestingtoobtaininformationonanypastor ongoing fieldandlaboratory
researchthat relate togeneticengineering. Likewise,forpeoplealready subjecttogeneticengineering,

2. perhapsthere can be longitudinal studies. The basicresearchquestionforthe above is:Whatare or
whathave beenthe effectsof geneticengineeringonvariousaspectsof people’slives? The information
isimportantso as to betterinterpret,intermsof the details,the positive andnegative resultsof human
geneticengineering.Thereforewe canat leastdevelopatentativeconsensusastowhetherthe
technologyhasturnedoutto be generallybeneficialordetrimentaltohumanity’swell-being.
Recommendationsforaction and somethoughts
Bill McKibben,inhisbook Enough:Staying Human in an Engineered Age (2003), writesonthis
issue ina poignant andsincere tone. Idon’thave a copy of hisbook anymore,butthe subtitle indicates
the dilemmathatgeneticengineeringgivesrise to.It’sadilemmathatI alsotry to evoke inthe previous
paragraphs.In thisdebate, McKibbencomesdownonthe side of notbecomingsodependentongenetic
engineering.He makesthe pointthatoursense of humanityisretainedby staying human.Tosome
extent,I’msympathetictoMcKibben’sperspective.Ourattitudestowardtechnological advanceslike
thisone indicate the state of our humanity. Althoughthere are real benefitstobe hadwiththe genetic
engineeringof humanembryos,namelyinreducingillnesses,there isalsoaneedforsome perspective
and evenlimits.Thatistosay,althoughwe shoulduse geneticengineeringtoreduce diseasesthatare
inheritable, we shouldnotconsiderit away to create “super-humans,”inphysical and/orintellectual
terms.
Thus,there isneedforeducation,discussionanddebate soasto provide some perspective asto
the abilitiesandeffectsof geneticengineering.Thatisto say,if we can use geneticengineeringto
restrict,perhapseliminate,the prevalence of inheritableillnessesand disabilities,thenbyall meanswe
should,indeedmust,doso.But let’s notuse thistool insuch a way that we endupcreatingmore
stratificationinanalreadystratifiedsociety(e.g.,the rich-poorgap).If needbe,we mayneedtodevelop
a litmustestto judge asto whethersomebodyisseekingthe aidof sucha technologyfor“valid”
purposes(thatone’schildmayleadahealthier, more physicallyable life)orforopportunisticreasons.
Likewise,those whobenefittremendously,perhapsdisproportionately,fromgeneticengineeringin
termsof profitand/orheightenedabilitiesshouldbe expectedto“give back”to society. Inthese ways,
amongother approaches,we cantake advantage of the benefitsof geneticengineeringwhile holdingon
to the humanaspectsof our lives.