Search Immortality Topics:

Page 8«..78910..2030..»

Regenerative Medicine for Knee Pain

Posted: April 28, 2019 at 8:50 am

Knee pain is one of the most common reasons for a person to visit the doctor. Even more so, knee pain is one of the leading symptoms for people to schedule an appointment with a physical therapist. Although some therapy will be required after you recover from a knee injury, all therapy doesnt have to be as painful. In fact, regenerative medicine at Regenerative Medicine Therapy by Optimal Professional Health Services, PC in Norwood may be able to help people improve their chances of recovery and preventing future injuries.

If you are suffering from knee pain and do not want to have a surgical procedure done, call Regenerative Medicine Therapy by Optimal Professional Health Services, PC in Norwood at (781) 702-3030to see if you qualify to receive regenerative medicine injections for your knee pain.

Our doctors understand how draining it be to suffer from chronic pain. At Regenerative Medicine Therapy by Optimal Professional Health Services, PC in Norwood, we can our therapy can help anything from arthritis to common knee injuries, such as: torn meniscus, tendonitis, ACLs, or MCLs. Regenerative medicine has also been successful in improving degenerative bone conditions for some patients. Results will vary for all patients, but the only way to see if you are qualified for this therapy is to schedule a consultation in our Norwood office.

Patients choose regenerative medicine for many reasons, but not having to endure a surgical procedure is among the most popular reasons to receive regenerative medicine injections. This form of therapy gives patients less recovery time compared to surgical operations. In fact, many professional athletes elect to receive regenerative medicine instead of surgery based on the speedy recovery time that this therapy offers. Regenerative medicine is the latest medical breakthrough in nonsurgical, pain-relief therapy, and our doctors can help alleviate you chronic knee pain that was caused by certain medical conditions.

How Does Regenerative Medicine Knee Pain?

A 2014 international review examined 16 documented studies on the effectiveness of one form of regenerative medicine and how it can help chronic knee pain from osteoarthritis (archives-pmr.org, 2014). The researchers in each study found that PRP injections helped most of the patients recover from their injury at a faster rate compared to those who just endured physical therapy, and they recovered at a similar rate compared to those who received a surgical procedure. The review concluded by determining that regenerative medicine improved the functional status in approximately 85% of the 1,543 patients who participated in each study (archives-pmr.org, 2014).

Regenerative medicine promotes cell regeneration to support damaged cartilage. The growth factors in the bodys blood cells work to repair damaged soft tissues. Although PRP injections can be slightly less expensive than stem cell injections, there is a tremendous difference in effectiveness. During a consultation, our doctor at Regenerative Medicine Therapy by Optimal Professional Health Services, PC can determine which injection therapy will help you more.

Regenerative Medicine Therapy by Optimal Professional Health Services, PC in Norwood offers regenerative medicine to qualified patients. Our Regenerative medicine therapy has successfully improved thousands of patients with chronic knee pain from tissue damage, cartilage deterioration, inflammation, and other knee injury symptoms.

To learn more about regenerative medicine for knee pain, call Regenerative Medicine Therapy by Optimal Professional Health Services, PC in Norwood at (781) 702-3030 to schedule a consultation and to find out if regenerative medicine therapy is right for you.

Link:
Regenerative Medicine for Knee Pain

Recommendation and review posted by G. Smith

Human Genetic Engineering – Evolution 21st Century Style?

Posted: April 28, 2019 at 8:48 am

So Whats with the Transhumanism Thing?

Transhumanism is a philosophical movement that is strongly related to humanism. It has specific beliefs about what the fate of humanity should be and how technology will help us shape and achieve that future. Ive put together a small number of core topic articles to get you orientated to the transhumanism movement and some of the most important concepts. You can tackle them in any order you want to, but I suggest you do them in this order.

First, have a look at What is transhumanism?, which I think most people would agree is a good place to start.

Right after that one, its a good idea to read Common misconceptions about transhumanists.

If you get those out of the way, you may be interested to read Understanding transhuman rights, which will give you a great idea of what it would be like living in a transhuman society.

Finally, the last two core topics are about concepts that are not subscribed to by all transhumanists, but are so popular in the movement that they deserve to be put here. The first is an article titled What is the singularity and the second is titled What are post-scarcity economics?.

If you get through all the core topics, youll know pretty much all you need in order to feel grounded in this interesting philosophical movement.With that out of the way, let me explain how the rest of the site works.

Transhumanism covers a wide range of ideas, fields, and technologies. So to make it all easier Ive tried to narrow them down to a few key areas. Obviously, many of these technologies overlap with each other, but wherever possible Ive tried to sort them neatly.

There are eight topic sections on this site besides the core topics weve already talked about, so lets look at each of these sections in alphabetical order.

See the original post:
Human Genetic Engineering - Evolution 21st Century Style?

Recommendation and review posted by G. Smith

Human Genetic Engineering | Free Essays – PhDessay.com

Posted: April 28, 2019 at 8:48 am

I will be discussing the controversial topic of human genetic engineering and its pros and cons from a biological and social point of view while also trying to answer the question Should human genetic engineering be legal. Genes control health and disease, as well as human traits and behavior. Researchers are Just beginning to use genetic technology to unravel the secrets to these phenotypes (observable trait caused by a gene).

for only $13.90/page

They are also discovering a range of other potential applications for this technology.

For instance, ongoing advances make it more and more likely that scientists will soon be able to genetically engineer humans to have certain desired traits (this is already done on mice). Of course, the possibility of human genetic engineering raises a number of ethical and legal questions, although such questions almost never have a clear and straight forward answer. The research of bioethics, sociologists, anthropologists, and other social scientists can tell us about how different citizens, cultures, and religions view the moral boundaries or the uses of human genetic engineering.

If human genetic modification Is fully legalized It will be done on the early, early stages of reproduction: from when It Is Just a sperm and an egg to the fetus stage, maybe a slight amount later. At this point of time It Is only legal to perform two types of advance reproductive technologies on humans. The first Is foretelling the egg with sperm In a test tube. This is used to determine the sex and what genes the baby will have, therefore knowing if using a different sperm/egg will be a better choice since one of the genes n the first tested set might be a genetic disease or the parents might prefer a different sex.

The second technique is much like the first. Embryos for a genetic disease; only selected embryos are implanted back into the mothers womb. This is called Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis. Now I will discuss what good can come of legalizing human genetic engineering. Really the most useful application of human genetic engineering is preventing hereditary diseases, disabilities and defects/doodlers. Examples include: Down syndrome, Diabetes, color blindness and even allergies.

Stopping these diseases/doodlers before the baby Is even born can help prevent a lot of Issues from happening In the childs future and can possibly save lives. Eventually the disease/disorder will die out because the gene has been removed from the generations making it unable to be passed down. Another application could involve stimulating muscle growth/brain development in turn making the child more athletic or more brainy also changing your childs physical features and traits, such as eye color and hair color.

Now for the bad: Although changing your childs physical traits, deciding to make them more muscular or more smart can seem like a good thing to a some people it is also viewed as a bad thing to some people. Things like a perfect race could arise from these problems, or baby trends, where it Is trendier that year for your kids to have blonde hair then It Is for them to have black or blue eyes rather than green. This Is generally the topic that Is the most talked amongst the public when discussing human genetic engineering.

Other social Issues can be raised such as It Is against gods will, countries creating super human soldiers, countries becoming more like the class system e: people who run business, there is also the issue of the child not having the choice to be genetically modified, the individuality of humans and coasts of genetically modifying also comes into play, such as, can only the rich afford it? From a biological point of view genetic modification could eventually make some genes extinct in a way, where they are no longer needed/deemed useless or maybe they go out of fashion.

In my opinion, I think that genetic modification in humans should be legal, but should only be used for hereditary diseases, disabilities and disorders which help the child but things like letting the parent chose the childs traits do not help the child and he/she also loses their individuality. Also there is the fact that the child doesnt have a choice at what the parents will make them look like. Changing the traits of a child through genetic engineering does not benefit the child and only pleases the parents. In

Conclusion to this essay, there is a high chance that human genetic engineering will be available soon and when it does it will be a very controversial issue, both on a biological and a social point of view. Most social issues come from a negative stand point and are mainly on the regulation of it (coasts, who can use it, what countries can do with it). There is no straight forward answer to the question of should human genetic modification be legal. Although there is a large amount of health benefits, the negative social issues may outweigh them. Word Count: 839

Read more:
Human Genetic Engineering | Free Essays - PhDessay.com

Recommendation and review posted by G. Smith

MUTYH gene – Genetics Home Reference – NIH

Posted: April 27, 2019 at 3:49 am

Cheadle JP, Sampson JR. Exposing the MYtH about base excision repair and human inherited disease. Hum Mol Genet. 2003 Oct 15;12 Spec No 2:R159-65. Epub 2003 Aug 5. Review.

Croitoru ME, Cleary SP, Di Nicola N, Manno M, Selander T, Aronson M, Redston M, Cotterchio M, Knight J, Gryfe R, Gallinger S. Association between biallelic and monoallelic germline MYH gene mutations and colorectal cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Nov 3;96(21):1631-4.

Farrington SM, Tenesa A, Barnetson R, Wiltshire A, Prendergast J, Porteous M, Campbell H, Dunlop MG. Germline susceptibility to colorectal cancer due to base-excision repair gene defects. Am J Hum Genet. 2005 Jul;77(1):112-9. Epub 2005 May 3.

Fleischmann C, Peto J, Cheadle J, Shah B, Sampson J, Houlston RS. Comprehensive analysis of the contribution of germline MYH variation to early-onset colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer. 2004 Apr 20;109(4):554-8.

Jones S, Emmerson P, Maynard J, Best JM, Jordan S, Williams GT, Sampson JR, Cheadle JP. Biallelic germline mutations in MYH predispose to multiple colorectal adenoma and somatic G:C-->T:A mutations. Hum Mol Genet. 2002 Nov 1;11(23):2961-7.

Jones S, Lambert S, Williams GT, Best JM, Sampson JR, Cheadle JP. Increased frequency of the k-ras G12C mutation in MYH polyposis colorectal adenomas. Br J Cancer. 2004 Apr 19;90(8):1591-3.

Kambara T, Whitehall VL, Spring KJ, Barker MA, Arnold S, Wynter CV, Matsubara N, Tanaka N, Young JP, Leggett BA, Jass JR. Role of inherited defects of MYH in the development of sporadic colorectal cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2004 May;40(1):1-9.

Lipton L, Halford SE, Johnson V, Novelli MR, Jones A, Cummings C, Barclay E, Sieber O, Sadat A, Bisgaard ML, Hodgson SV, Aaltonen LA, Thomas HJ, Tomlinson IP. Carcinogenesis in MYH-associated polyposis follows a distinct genetic pathway. Cancer Res. 2003 Nov 15;63(22):7595-9.

Lipton L, Tomlinson I. The multiple colorectal adenoma phenotype and MYH, a base excision repair gene. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004 Aug;2(8):633-8. Review.

Russell AM, Zhang J, Luz J, Hutter P, Chappuis PO, Berthod CR, Maillet P, Mueller H, Heinimann K. Prevalence of MYH germline mutations in Swiss APC mutation-negative polyposis patients. Int J Cancer. 2006 Apr 15;118(8):1937-40.

Sampson JR, Dolwani S, Jones S, Eccles D, Ellis A, Evans DG, Frayling I, Jordan S, Maher ER, Mak T, Maynard J, Pigatto F, Shaw J, Cheadle JP. Autosomal recessive colorectal adenomatous polyposis due to inherited mutations of MYH. Lancet. 2003 Jul 5;362(9377):39-41.

Sampson JR, Jones S, Dolwani S, Cheadle JP. MutYH (MYH) and colorectal cancer. Biochem Soc Trans. 2005 Aug;33(Pt 4):679-83. Review.

Sieber OM, Lipton L, Crabtree M, Heinimann K, Fidalgo P, Phillips RK, Bisgaard ML, Orntoft TF, Aaltonen LA, Hodgson SV, Thomas HJ, Tomlinson IP. Multiple colorectal adenomas, classic adenomatous polyposis, and germ-line mutations in MYH. N Engl J Med. 2003 Feb 27;348(9):791-9.

Venesio T, Molatore S, Cattaneo F, Arrigoni A, Risio M, Ranzani GN. High frequency of MYH gene mutations in a subset of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Gastroenterology. 2004 Jun;126(7):1681-5.

Wang L, Baudhuin LM, Boardman LA, Steenblock KJ, Petersen GM, Halling KC, French AJ, Johnson RA, Burgart LJ, Rabe K, Lindor NM, Thibodeau SN. MYH mutations in patients with attenuated and classic polyposis and with young-onset colorectal cancer without polyps. Gastroenterology. 2004 Jul;127(1):9-16. Erratum in: Gastroenterology. 2004 Nov;127(5):1651.

See more here:
MUTYH gene - Genetics Home Reference - NIH

Recommendation and review posted by G. Smith

Most Americans Accept Genetic Engineering of Animals That …

Posted: April 27, 2019 at 3:49 am

As Americans consider the possible uses of genetic engineering in animals, their reactions are neither uniformly accepting nor resistant; instead, public reactions vary depending on the mechanism and intended purpose of the technology, particularly the extent to which it would bring health benefits to humans.

Presented with five different scenarios of animal genetic engineering that are currently available, in development or considered possible in the future, Americans provide majority support only for the two that have clear potential to pre-empt or ameliorate human illness.

The surveys most widely accepted use of genetic intervention of animals involves mosquitoes. Seven-in-ten Americans (70%) believe that genetically engineering mosquitoes to prevent their reproduction and therefore the spread of some mosquito-borne diseases would be an appropriate use of technology, while about three-in-ten (29%) see the use of genetic engineering for this purpose as taking technology too far.

And a 57% majority considers it appropriate to genetically engineer animals to grow organs or tissues that could be used for humans needing a transplant.

But other uses of animal biotechnology are less acceptable to the public, including the creation of more nutritious meat for human consumption (43% say this is appropriate) or restoring an extinct animal species from a closely related species (32% say this is appropriate). And one application that is already commercially available is largely met with resistance: Just 21% of Americans consider it an appropriate use of technology to genetically engineer aquarium fish to glow using a fluorescence gene, while 77% say this is taking technology too far.

These are some of the findings from a new Pew Research Center survey, conducted April 23-May 6 among a nationally representative sample of 2,537 U.S. adults that looks at public views about genetic engineering of animals a term that encompasses a range of biotechnologies that can add, delete or change an animals existing genetic material and thereby introduce new traits or characteristics.

Although most Americans are largely in agreement that using genetic engineering in mosquitoes to prevent the spread of mosquito-borne illnesses is appropriate, views about other uses of genetic engineering of animals considered in the survey differ by gender, levels of science knowledge andreligiosity. Men are more accepting of these uses of technology than women, those with high science knowledge are more accepting than those with medium or low science knowledge and those low in religious commitment are more accepting than those with medium or high levels of religious commitment.

For example, about two-thirds of men (65%) see genetic engineering of animals to grow human organs or tissues for transplants as appropriate, compared with about half of women (49%). Also, Americans with high science knowledge (72%) are more inclined than those with medium (55%) or low (47%) science knowledge to say this would be appropriate. And a larger share of those with low religious commitment (68%) than medium (54%) or high (48%) religious commitment consider genetic engineering of animals to grow human organs or tissues for transplants to be appropriate.

Emerging developments in animal biotechnology raise new social, ethical and policy issues for society, including the potential impact on animal welfare.

The survey finds that the 52% of Americans who in general oppose the use of animals in scientific research are, perhaps not surprisingly, also more inclined to consider specific uses of genetic engineering of animals to be taking technology too far.

There are large differences between these groups when it comes to using animal biotechnology for humans needing an organ or tissue transplant and the idea of using such technology to produce more nutritious meat.

To better understand peoples beliefs about genetic engineering of animals, the survey asked a subset of respondents to explain, in their own words, the main reason behind their view that genetic engineering in each of these circumstances would be taking technology too far.

A common refrain in these responses raised the possibility of unknown risks for animals, humans or the ecosystem. Some saw these technologies as humankind inappropriately interfering with the natural world or raised general concerns about unknown risks.

About three-in-ten of those who said genetic engineering of mosquitoes would be taking technology too far explained that humankind would be disrupting nature (23%) or interfering with Gods plan (8%).

One respondent put it this way:

Nature is a balance and every time man interferes with it, it doesnt turn out well.

Some 24% of those with objections to the idea of reducing the fertility of mosquitoes through genetic engineering in order to reduce mosquito-borne illnesses raised concerns about the possible impact on the ecosystem.

Such responses include:

I do not think we know enough about the effects of removing a whole class of insectsfrom the environment. What would be the effects on those animal and plants up the chain?

Mosquitoes are part of a complex ecosystem and food chain. By preventing their reproduction, we risk disrupting the entire ecosystem.

Objections to the idea of using animal biotechnology to grow organs or tissues for transplant in humans focused on beliefs about using animals for human benefit (21%) and potential risks for human health from creating human organs from animals (16%).

For example:

In manufacturing organs, the existence of these animals would be miserable in order to cultivate such organs the animals would need to be in a lab setting and would more than likely never see the light of day. I cant ethically say that I would agree with such a practice.

When you mix human and nonhuman genetics I believe that will cause extreme problems down the road.

Animal organs are not made for humans even though some animal and human organs may be very similar. Who knows what side effects this could cause? Even human-to-human organ transplants often reject, so I can only imagine the bad side effects that an animal-to-human transplant would cause. Keep things simple and the way nature intended.

Genetic engineering could produce more nutritious meat by altering animal proteins. Those who think this is taking technology too far raised a number of different concerns. Some cited general concerns about as-yet-unknown risks (20% of those asked), while a similar share (19%) saw this as messing with nature or Gods plan in a way that goes beyond what humans should do.

One respondent put it this way:

Should we as human beings change the course of natures natural selection and potentially introduce unintended serious consequences?

About one-in-ten (12%) objected to the idea on the grounds that people should rely less on meat in their diet or that any genetic engineering in foods is a likely health risk.

One example of these concerns:

Meat is nutritious as it is. There is no need to try to increase nutrition. Rather we should be decreasing human reliance on meat as a foodstuff.

Those who objected to the idea of bringing back extinct species often raised concerns about unintended harm to the ecosystem. Roughly two-in-ten (18%) of those asked explained their views by saying there is a reason that these animals are currently extinct, with some saying these animals would be unlikely to survive if brought back, and another 12% of this group raised potential risks to other species and the ecosystem from bringing an extinct animal into a different world.

For example:

Beware of unintended consequences. The universe is in balance with them extinct. Consider the problems man has created by reintroducing species that have become extinct [in] a given area, i.e., wolves and mountain lions to areas now occupied by humans and domestic livestock.

Others discussed these ideas in terms of Gods plan and human interference with the natural world (23%).

A few examples:

God is the creator of all living things, not mankind. Extinction is part of evolution of the universe.

Nature has selected species to become extinct over millions and millions of years. We have no right to bring animals back and play God.

And 14% said they regard bringing back an extinct species as taking technology too far because they do not see a need or purpose to this, especially as it does not seem to bring any benefit to humans, or that resources should be focused elsewhere.

A sampling of these concerns:

For what purpose would it be done? Is there a benefit to humanity other than having a rare zoo specimen? Would the extinct species cease to become extinct through natural reproduction if not that, the whole effort is without merit.

I dont see the purpose of bringing any animal back. Would it provide a better way of life for humans?

Objections to the idea of changing the appearance of aquarium fish using genetic engineering to make the fish glow often focused on the lack of apparent need or benefit to either humans or animals.

About half (48%) of those who say engineering a glowing fish takes technology too far said they do not see the purpose for humans or society, questioned its necessity or considered it frivolous or a waste of resources.

Some examples:

[While] changing a fish to glow might sound like something people would want to see its not something beneficial to humankind. At this point it would just [be] playing God to entertain rather [than] help us.

Its frivolous. Technology should be used to help people, animals and the environment, not put on a glow show.

Why? If you only do something because you can is not a good reason. If any genetic engineering is allowed it will get out of hand. It would be a fine line that I am sure we would cross.

It seems a frivolous thing to do, much like someone getting plastic surgery to remove wrinkles or other signs of aging. The persons life is not extended by a better appearance. The aquarium fish also do not benefit from their changed appearance.

Read more:
Most Americans Accept Genetic Engineering of Animals That ...

Recommendation and review posted by G. Smith

Is human genetic engineering ethical? | Debate.org

Posted: April 27, 2019 at 3:49 am

As students of a high school summer genetic engineering course, we have decided that human genetic engineering is immoral for the following reasons: It would eliminate talent; as stated in The Incredibles, If everyones super, then no one will be. And Playing God is a dangerous game that inevitably ends with a monster.- AnonymousEveryone will be the same, parents will want the perfect child, therefore, everyone will have the same talents and advantages, so it will not make a big difference in society. If a group of people begins to make superior changes in their offspring, the rest of the population will be left with inferior children unless they too join in the practice of designing their baby. Therefore, the company that produces these changes will be in control of the population.If human genetic engineering were to happen, the various figures of god, which millions of people around the world rely on every day would collapse and becomes us, therefore, reducing faith by having us play the role of a god-like figure. While creating the perfect immune system, only diseases that are already known will be prevented. When a new disease comes along, our immune system will not be comparatively as strong. We came to the opinion that genetically engineering designer babies is wrong because the social-economic divide would become increasingly more noticeable and potentially more hostile.Genetically engineering a privileged embryo to be immune to all known diseases would cause the downfall of the pharmaceutics industry, and consequently the deaths of a great number of underprivileged citizens.

When we try to engineer a child, for that is what an embryo is, a child, we change God's plan for the child. If that child was meant to be born with dyslexia, and you take it from them, not only are we taking away something that they will grow through, but we ourselves are playing god. A parent raises a child with unconditional love. If that child is chosen to be a certain sex, hair color, eye color, IQ and all imperfections have been taken out, how can the love of their parents ever be unconditional?

It is meddling with something beyond our grasp, we are not meant to play God and try to create life in the way we wish it to be. We are all formed in our mothers womb just as he wants us to be. "Ps 139:13 - For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb." "Isaiah 44:24 - Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself."

I believe it is unethical because it goes against the Bible. I believe that only God can truly affect the genetics of a human being and the science doesn't stand a chance. It is morally wrong and takes God out of it. After all we are talking about a human life here. No matter what people say, the cells science messes with are human beings.

In the bible it says that we were created in gods image. If we genetic engineer on some one then we are tarnishing the image of God. In the move Gattaca they show that only people of higher class and are modified can be great, but look at steven hawking. Steven hawking has helped contrubute so much and look at his diabilaties.

When will we learn the simple fact that everything man has tried to improve on relating to mother nature and creation has ultimately ended up being a step in the wrong direction? Sometimes irreversible changes we could not have forseen show up decades later. When you put something on this earth that never has and never was intended to be here, you can't possibly see the repercussions it will bring about. There is so much we will never understand about the human body, mind and soul. It is foolish and arrogant to think we can experiment with the human race on this level and say we understand it all. When will we learn? We are not God. If you don't believe in the God who created everything, then most likely you will think man is smart enough and powerful enough to cure any disease, engineer life to last indefinitely, and anything else our heart desires, without any consequences. I'm all for advances in healthcare, but we can't possibly think we can improve on what God created can we? In his ultimate wisdom he created the human race, and the universe. Let's just figure out how to build a car that will last more than 10 years before we start engineering the perfect human race. What do you say?

It leaves people to decide what the "ultimate race" would be like. Genetic engineering doesn't cure diseases as people claim. Genetics in one of the most misunderstood realms of science. (Not that I understand it, but the leading scientist can't come to consensus either.) It is used for growth hormone, insulin production, fertility drugs, and vaccines. Since genetics is so risky and these risks are not fully understood, GE on humans should be restricted to research and experimentation in life or death situations.

Why spend money on creating your own child from chosen traits? Let mother nature take its course. Okay? So people... Dont customize your own child, thats just wrong. It may seem appealing at first because you want your child to be so-called perfect, but hey, no one's perfect. Okay?

In the 21st century, we have seen the vast differences in technological advancements in the developed and developing countries in the world. The poor citizens of developing countries generally have less sophisticated technological gadgets compared to those that are wealthier. If we were to allow genetic engineering, it will certainly create an even larger inequality between the rich and the poor. The affluent ones can simply pay to get muscle enhancements or increase their IQ genetically. However, the poor ones will have to toll and work very hard simply to match up to their rich counterparts. This would certainly create an unbalanced society where the rich will continue to advance and become richer whereas the poor will be left behind in this fast-paced race. Thus, this clear distinction between the two groups: the Genetically Modified and the normal being is known as the Genetic Divide. In such a society, the poor will be extremely disadvantaged and it will be even harder to adopt a meritocratic system. Thus, an equal starting platform will no longer exist. Therefore, genetic engineering should not be pursued as it has the potential to cause an unwanted genetic divide in the society.

Though there are many naysayers out there God does exist. He has more power and love than we could possibly imagine. He has a divine plan for every person and tragedy happens for a reason, the ripple effect is endless even if we are too stubborn to see. We do not have the right to play God. If diseases happen they happen for a reason and though tragic there is always something good that comes out of it. Plus, messing with genetics and increasing lifespans in an unnatural way only contributes to overpopulation that much more.

Read the original:
Is human genetic engineering ethical? | Debate.org

Recommendation and review posted by G. Smith


Page 8«..78910..2030..»