Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Pptpodcast2

627 views

Published on

a basic discussion of gene selection and bioethics played to "harder, better, faster, stronger"

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Pptpodcast2

  1. 1. Genetic Manipulation and Bioethics By Caleb McFelbon
  2. 2. Genetic modification <ul><li>any alteration of genetic material, as in agriculture, to make them capable of producing new substances or performing new functions; also called genetic engineering, genetic manipulation, gene splicing, [gene technology], & recombinant DNA technology </li></ul>
  3. 4. Why this is Important <ul><li>Scientist tell us that by changing our DNA, we can cure many diseases “We are promised, however, that these techniques will help in the development of spare human organs. And someday inserting a modified gene into a human egg could reduce susceptibility to diseases such as aids or Alzheimer's” (Of mice...) </li></ul><ul><li>However, </li></ul>
  4. 5. THE PURPOSE <ul><li>If we can make better humans, should we? </li></ul><ul><li>If we can “make” better humans and animals, will they become objects to us? </li></ul><ul><li>What will the off-spring of the genetically engineered children be like? </li></ul><ul><li>If genetic engineering becomes common, will natural humans become second class? </li></ul><ul><li>The purpose of this podcast it to show the Pro's and Con's of Genetic manipulation and to promote discussion of the possibilities of genetic science. </li></ul>
  5. 6. Pro's of genetic manipulation <ul><li>use of the cloning technique may produce scientific and medical benefits (report)‏ </li></ul><ul><li>A cure to HIV/AIDS and other currently incurable diseases could be found. </li></ul>
  6. 7. <ul><li>The “perfect”human being could be created </li></ul>
  7. 8. <ul><li>New organs could be grown from other animals, reducing the wait time for organ transplants </li></ul>
  8. 9. <ul><li>Better domestic animals could be raised </li></ul>
  9. 10. <ul><li>But we could go overboard. </li></ul>
  10. 11. Con's of genetic manipuation <ul><li>We don't know what risks will it pose. Who can know before the actual experiments take place? In the face of uncertainty, who can give informed consent? </li></ul><ul><li>Children given modified genes at conception may be born and raised, perhaps reaching adulthood, before the full effects of any alteration or treatment can be known. </li></ul>
  11. 12. <ul><li>Some Benefits will be worse that the problems they are trying to correct </li></ul>
  12. 13. <ul><li>Humans could be engineered, thereby creating a second class citizen. </li></ul>
  13. 14. Some could just go crazy
  14. 16. Hmmmm.... So where is the line?
  15. 17. Biography <ul><li>&quot;Of mice, jellyfish & us.(ethics of reproductive technology and human genetic experimentation).&quot; Commonweal. 127. 2 (Jan 28, 2000): 5. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Alabama Virtual Library Remote Access. 2 May. 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=OVRC&docId=A60054354&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=avlr&version=1.0>. </li></ul>
  16. 18. Tzoref, Judah. &quot;Incorporating Responsibility into Science.(CORRESPONDENCE)(Letter to the editor).&quot; Frontier Perspectives. 11. 2 (Fall 2002): 4(1). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Alabama Virtual Library Remote Access. 2 May. 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=OVRC&docId=A163336291&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=avlr&version=1.0>.
  17. 19. Zweig, Franklin M. &quot;With Reproductive Freedom and Distributive Justice for All.(Review).&quot; American Scientist. 89. 1 (Jan 2001): 77. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Alabama Virtual Library Remote Access. 2 May. 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=OVRC&docId=A68704435&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=avlr&version=1.0>.
  18. 20. &quot;Report on human cloning criticized. (National Bioethics Advisory Commission's report and recommendations).&quot; Issues in Science and Technology. v14. n1 (Fall 1997): p33(1). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Alabama Virtual Library Remote Access. 2 May. 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=OVRC&docId=A20390797&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=avlr&version=1.0>.

×