I feel like this is a complicated issue. Some may argue that modifying embryos for research is okay and that using it for reproductive purposes is crossing the line ethically. However, the first thing …Read MoreI feel like this is a complicated issue. Some may argue that modifying embryos for research is okay and that using it for reproductive purposes is crossing the line ethically. However, the first thing that I think of is the possibility of it to lead to eugenics to get certain “desirable traits.” In addition, could this modification lead to mistakes where new diseases are created? I don’t know too much about the science behind this but I feel like there could be potential consequences. Another thing that I think of is the inability to get consent.Read Less
The potential and extent for harm caused by permitting gene modification makes the practice extremely dubious. Unintended/Unforeseen biological consequences with the additional precedent for ‘designer …Read MoreThe potential and extent for harm caused by permitting gene modification makes the practice extremely dubious. Unintended/Unforeseen biological consequences with the additional precedent for ‘designer babies’ are entirely undesirable, but the reduction in inherited diseases like Huntington’s can’t be ignored. I don’t see any method of inching into a safe, reliable use of technologies to edit the genes of embryos, but if one arose that was certain to enforce accountability, I might be more supportive.Read Less
I do not support this. While I see why some may think this is a good idea, in reality this is a form of eugenics which I personally do not support. There is also evidence to support that genetically …Read MoreI do not support this. While I see why some may think this is a good idea, in reality this is a form of eugenics which I personally do not support. There is also evidence to support that genetically modifying embryos is dangerous and may cause diseases in itself, defeating its initial purpose.Read Less
I am against this, but I do see the other side to the argument. The technology in order to do so is relatively new meaning that there could be complications trying to genetically prevent diseases. On …Read MoreI am against this, but I do see the other side to the argument. The technology in order to do so is relatively new meaning that there could be complications trying to genetically prevent diseases. On the other hand, modifying embryos in order to prevent serious disease or disability could reduce suffering and improve the quality of life. I also do not have enough knowledge about this topic and the studies that have been done proving this technology is adequate.Read Less
I think this would be unethical. The idea of preventing diseases by modifying embryos is great in theory, but in reality, that’s not how it would be used. What comes to mind first is that people …Read MoreI think this would be unethical. The idea of preventing diseases by modifying embryos is great in theory, but in reality, that’s not how it would be used. What comes to mind first is that people would likely try to use genetic modification to “cure” their children of disabilities, such as Down syndrome. But disabilities are not diseases, and that’s where I see a major ethical issue. The only exception I can imagine supporting is the prevention of deadly genetic diseases—but even then, I worry that it would be taken too far and misused.Read Less
I think that is it is used exactly as described, I don’t see a problem with it because it stands to improve the life of the child. I do recognize that it would likely to used for other purposes but I …Read MoreI think that is it is used exactly as described, I don’t see a problem with it because it stands to improve the life of the child. I do recognize that it would likely to used for other purposes but I do support soley disease modification.Read Less
Answering the question exactly as posed, of course it is ethical to modify an embryo to prevent disease, the same way that other preventative and reactive measures to preventing and treating diseases …Read MoreAnswering the question exactly as posed, of course it is ethical to modify an embryo to prevent disease, the same way that other preventative and reactive measures to preventing and treating diseases are. However, as others in the comments have said, *permitting* this kind of procedure is likely to lead us down a slippery eugenicist slope. It also presents us with the tricky question of “what counts as a disease?” Surely, some disabilities can and should fall under that category, but certainly not all disabilities inherently prevent a good quality of life. And we could get to a weird spot (especially with white supremacist sentiment) where non-designer babies that aren’t genetically altered to meet some arbitrary standard are considered “diseased.” I don’t think I know enough about these kinds of operations or the effectiveness of enforcing medical law to make a definitive judgment, but it definitely seems dangerous to walk down that path.Read Less
When answering this question, I will assume that access to genetic engineering is equally available to everyone. If only the wealthy can access genetic engineering, then I think that is a problem with …Read MoreWhen answering this question, I will assume that access to genetic engineering is equally available to everyone. If only the wealthy can access genetic engineering, then I think that is a problem with modern capitalism and inequality, but not necessarily an intrinsic injustice with genetic engineering itself.
This question also depends on what you think a disease is. I think most people can agree that cancer, Ebola, or even the common cold is a disease. However, what about things like Down syndrome, autism, or deafness/blindness? Oftentimes, people consider things like autism a part of their identity, and if you used technology to prevent someone from having autism, you would deprive them of what would’ve been a core part of who they were.
I think this issue is complicated. If genetic engineering WERE to be implemented, I think it would be paramount to ensure that access is equal across race, class, and gender, and that the definition of a “disease” isn’t problematic. Read Less
I feel like this is a complicated issue. Some may argue that modifying embryos for research is okay and that using it for reproductive purposes is crossing the line ethically. However, the first thing …Read MoreI feel like this is a complicated issue. Some may argue that modifying embryos for research is okay and that using it for reproductive purposes is crossing the line ethically. However, the first thing that I think of is the possibility of it to lead to eugenics to get certain “desirable traits.” In addition, could this modification lead to mistakes where new diseases are created? I don’t know too much about the science behind this but I feel like there could be potential consequences. Another thing that I think of is the inability to get consent. Read Less
The potential and extent for harm caused by permitting gene modification makes the practice extremely dubious. Unintended/Unforeseen biological consequences with the additional precedent for ‘designer …Read MoreThe potential and extent for harm caused by permitting gene modification makes the practice extremely dubious. Unintended/Unforeseen biological consequences with the additional precedent for ‘designer babies’ are entirely undesirable, but the reduction in inherited diseases like Huntington’s can’t be ignored. I don’t see any method of inching into a safe, reliable use of technologies to edit the genes of embryos, but if one arose that was certain to enforce accountability, I might be more supportive. Read Less
I do not support this. While I see why some may think this is a good idea, in reality this is a form of eugenics which I personally do not support. There is also evidence to support that genetically …Read MoreI do not support this. While I see why some may think this is a good idea, in reality this is a form of eugenics which I personally do not support. There is also evidence to support that genetically modifying embryos is dangerous and may cause diseases in itself, defeating its initial purpose. Read Less
I am against this, but I do see the other side to the argument. The technology in order to do so is relatively new meaning that there could be complications trying to genetically prevent diseases. On …Read MoreI am against this, but I do see the other side to the argument. The technology in order to do so is relatively new meaning that there could be complications trying to genetically prevent diseases. On the other hand, modifying embryos in order to prevent serious disease or disability could reduce suffering and improve the quality of life. I also do not have enough knowledge about this topic and the studies that have been done proving this technology is adequate. Read Less
I think this would be unethical. The idea of preventing diseases by modifying embryos is great in theory, but in reality, that’s not how it would be used. What comes to mind first is that people …Read MoreI think this would be unethical. The idea of preventing diseases by modifying embryos is great in theory, but in reality, that’s not how it would be used. What comes to mind first is that people would likely try to use genetic modification to “cure” their children of disabilities, such as Down syndrome. But disabilities are not diseases, and that’s where I see a major ethical issue. The only exception I can imagine supporting is the prevention of deadly genetic diseases—but even then, I worry that it would be taken too far and misused. Read Less
I think that is it is used exactly as described, I don’t see a problem with it because it stands to improve the life of the child. I do recognize that it would likely to used for other purposes but I …Read MoreI think that is it is used exactly as described, I don’t see a problem with it because it stands to improve the life of the child. I do recognize that it would likely to used for other purposes but I do support soley disease modification. Read Less
Answering the question exactly as posed, of course it is ethical to modify an embryo to prevent disease, the same way that other preventative and reactive measures to preventing and treating diseases …Read MoreAnswering the question exactly as posed, of course it is ethical to modify an embryo to prevent disease, the same way that other preventative and reactive measures to preventing and treating diseases are. However, as others in the comments have said, *permitting* this kind of procedure is likely to lead us down a slippery eugenicist slope. It also presents us with the tricky question of “what counts as a disease?” Surely, some disabilities can and should fall under that category, but certainly not all disabilities inherently prevent a good quality of life. And we could get to a weird spot (especially with white supremacist sentiment) where non-designer babies that aren’t genetically altered to meet some arbitrary standard are considered “diseased.” I don’t think I know enough about these kinds of operations or the effectiveness of enforcing medical law to make a definitive judgment, but it definitely seems dangerous to walk down that path. Read Less
When answering this question, I will assume that access to genetic engineering is equally available to everyone. If only the wealthy can access genetic engineering, then I think that is a problem with …Read MoreWhen answering this question, I will assume that access to genetic engineering is equally available to everyone. If only the wealthy can access genetic engineering, then I think that is a problem with modern capitalism and inequality, but not necessarily an intrinsic injustice with genetic engineering itself.
This question also depends on what you think a disease is. I think most people can agree that cancer, Ebola, or even the common cold is a disease. However, what about things like Down syndrome, autism, or deafness/blindness? Oftentimes, people consider things like autism a part of their identity, and if you used technology to prevent someone from having autism, you would deprive them of what would’ve been a core part of who they were.
I think this issue is complicated. If genetic engineering WERE to be implemented, I think it would be paramount to ensure that access is equal across race, class, and gender, and that the definition of a “disease” isn’t problematic. Read Less
Don’t know enough about the topic to have much of an opinion.