designer babies and statistics of genetic engineering

             Creating "designer babies" has its ups and downs. Since it is not yet a proven and undertaken task among the public yet, its theories consist of possible situations. If in the future the possibility for the wealthy, who will be the only ones able to afford the process, they will be given the option of choosing not only eye color, sex, and hair color of their embryo's or unborn baby's genes but with the fast approaching adaption and discoveries that come with nondisease treatments, they can test for muscular strength, temperament, personality attributes, and much more. It is a scary process, not only are we in the age of "super computers" but now we have broken into a phenomena of practically sketching out your kid front toe to head. according to the site http://www.humansfuture.org/genetic_engineering_designer_babies.php.htm , titled Future Human Evolution, Genetic Engineering, it sums up the possibilities of designer babies: "Most of us have seen the term 'designer baby' used by the media. The term conjures up images of couples sitting down with a catalogue and carefully selecting each feature, characteristic and trait one by one; sex, eye and hair colour, height, weight, talents, definitely not the father's nose.  The scientific reality is far removed from the media fervour. You can select an embryo with the right chromosomes to produce the child of your chosen sex or have the embryo screened for a potential hereditary genetic disorders, or choose an embryo that is a genetic match for a sibling who already has a genetic disorder, but anything else is pure hypothesis."

So in saying, birth catalogs may one day be composed where parents can choose to substitute certain idealized features for those which would naturally occur in their own gene set because it is seen as inferior to the "enhanced version" gene. Parents could one day have the option of choosing their child's instincts, moods, social behavior, beauty, and health. As for me, this is one scary idea. Not only is it an idea but it is a very high and likely process that will occur one day. Imagine if you could design humans, and everyone would look perfect, flawless. The idea of the movie Surrogates coming true to where we are all in perfection and live as long as possible is unreal and should not every be possible. We are made, designed, and limited on time just as we were supposed to be. What do you think? Would you want to be able to create perfect children? Because if you were not wealthy or unable to participate in the process otherwise, imagine how inferior those who were born "normal" would feel. We would have prejudice and discriminatory groups against those who are "purebred and perfect" and those who are "normal" and perhaps called "mutts".

While designer babies still remains and is considered as a possibility because the technology is not yet developed,  a real experimentation is going on within society, with atheletes. Recently they have found out and acquired ways in which to grab hold of this process to better themselves for their competitions or sports. They have desired, coaches and athletes alike, to build a better athlete with gene doping.  We've always had performance-enhancing drugs like steriods, erythoropoietin, and growth hormones. The International Olympic Committee created the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) because of this which prohibits the use of performance-enhancing drugs among athletes. But recently they have had to battle against the newest abuse of drugs, gene doping. 

In gene-therapy, which is disease treatment and used for disease purposes, the transfer of genetic material to human cells treats or prevents the disease within that person. Gene therapy has been used in situations such as cystic fibrosis, haemophilia, muscular dystrophy, and sickle cell anemia. But gene doping takes advantage of gene therapy within the same process but increases the amount of proteins and hormones that the cells normally take. MSNBC's article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10628586/ns/health-fitness/t/sports-authorities-fear-gene-doping-not-far/#.Tq7_wEPiGU8 , titled Sports Authorities Fear Gene Doping Not Far Off states that WADA has held two previous conferences discussing the effects and uses of gene doping among athletes in the Olympics. At the second conference held in Stockholm, one of the world's leading expert in disease-purpose gene therapy and the chairman of gene doping panel of WADA, Theodore Friedmann says that  “I’m not so sanguine as I was that this is far off in the future.” Scientists studying genetics, Friedmann reports, “often say they are approached frequently by athletes, trainers, entourage-type people asking what is available.”

Although the cases are minimal and hard to find, one proven abuse of gene doping has occurred with Thomas Springstein, a german coached accused of genetically engineering his athletes with the use of Repoxygen, a banned substance used in gene therapy to treat patients with anemia. It is responsible for increasing the amount of oxygen the blood can deliver to the muscles, thereby enhancing muscle growth and ability. Scientists were able to discover they could induce muscle development through the experimentation of the "Schwarzenegger Mice" who were tested on to see the effects and possible results of muscle growth and strength in the late 1990s. Ever since then, coaches, athletes, and scientists have been constantly on the move to develop higher and more proficient ways of enhancement among humans. Gene doping is hard to test for due to the fact of internal modification of genes, so scientists and WADA are on a run to develop ways to detect this gene doping so that everyone gets an equal chance within sports.  (springstein's athletes)

My point within this entry is to make known the possibilities and dangers of nondisease testing and engineering  within humans. Our world and the technology along with it are growing at astonishing and  lethal rates with few who seem to be striving to stop them. We need to be aware of the dangers that will arise if nondisease testing becomes accepted within society. I stand against the use, testing, and idea of genetic engineering for nondisease purposes. We should stop it before it can evolve; our society needs to only do genetic engineering  for DISEASE purposes and even that to the minimal extent. 

my view of eugenics

          Since life was patented in the early 1990s the world has evolved more than adapted. We are always taking situations or experiments to the extreme. For scientists and genetics to begin heading towards altering human genes is just radical. Disease related experiments are still unaccepted in society so for them to introduce a whole new, even more dangerous idea of nondisease treatment is just an "out of this world" concept. With disease engineering in genes, the microbiologists detect in DNA, certain strands that appeal of possible or confirmed traits that a pathogen would acquire. The next step in the process after identification of the harmful or defective DNA, is to take the same DNA of that disease but this time that of a healthy one, place it into a non-harming virus which is then placed back into the DNA of that person so it can reproduce rapidly, as viruses do, with the correct and helpful new DNA to minimize or eliminate the disease entirely.
Why use viruses? Since viruses infect the human cells so proficiently and at such a rapid reproduction pace, they are useful candidates for when attempting to shut down, cure or stop a disease from growing. With the healthy DNA strand now in the body, it quickly reproduces over and over again infecting the body in a healthy way, for once, to gain the desired traits. Other disease related testing includes diagnostic testing for adult-onset conditions. In this process, children or adolescents are tested to see if they are likely candidates for onset, predicted disease that will emerge later in life after a period of time. Some argue that this questionable approach to disease verification causes undue stress and harmful anxiety of having to wait for the disease to finally set in. Others oppose and say it is beneficial because even if they are diagnosed for the future disease to take over, they are grateful for knowing early-on because it gives them time to plan ahead with things like retirement, wills, financial situations, and completing or beginning their "bucket lists".
          Other potential problems with disease testing is that it has lead to testing of desired traits, which is categorized as nondisease testing. People are curious as to see what traits they will inherit, pass to their offspring, and which ones are favorable. Some of these designed tests in use already consist of testing for eye color, handedness, addictive behavior, "nutritional backgrounds", and athleticism. Once this testing becomes more common within society, some opposers worry that too much testing will occur that will lead to prejudice and social discriminative problems. For people who discover they do not possess the superior or desired gene that the majority of the population has, will develop a negative self-image or inferior complex. It's a gene. Not a tangible object, you can't just easily go replace it with a high priced gucci product so you fit in.  Testing also has developed for personality traits; we are able to figure out our inherited temperament, intelligence, anger. There is a fear with this type of testing that those who discover they have physiological or behavioral traits seem as negative will develop depression and other psychological damaging effects knowing they are designed within their body to not be as smart, as happy, or as calm as the majority of the population. For this, scientists and those investing this process fear for the future prejudicial problems that will arise.

As society has evolved through the decades so has the ability to evolve humans

         Eugenics is defined in the Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary as "the science that deals with the improvement of races and breeds, especially the human race, through the control of hereditary factors." One may simply skim over that sentence and only briefly grasp the magnitude of its defintion. Eugenics is a recent procedure which the future of man kind will one day rely upon in order to survive. Many take the idea of Eugenics as a form of "life extension", to physically enhance and alter genes in a way that provides internal benefits to that person's make-up and their organs or as a way to improve a person physically solely because they aspire to have preferred traits by the alteration of inheritable traits through the selection, modification, and enhancement of certain genes. In this day and age, our society on a global scale has continuously aimed for the development of powerful technologies while persistently out-doing the previous, by creating an even more paramount device or procedure. Our nation has always been competing with itself to be the best. In 1980, with the Supreme Court case Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the justices decided that genetically modified organisms can be patented. A whirlwind of scientific developments took off after that, not only was corn now genetically modified but just about every US crop within our borders was somehow altered to be stronger, better, faster growing, and more productive. Not only have we genetically modified crops, animals, plants, pharmaceutical drugs, microbes, insects, and food, but now we have arrived to the extent of desiring to genetically modify humans.
               Gene therapy, which is the alteration of genes to treat disease, along with the process of Eugenics has spiraled into two forms. Either gene modification can be used for disease-related purposes, i.e. treatment, prevention, curing, detection, and deletion of genes, or in a nondisease manner, by improving or enhancing of undesirable/desirable genes through alteration or enhancement to create a more beneficial trait. Because of the idea to use this procedure on humans is so fresh to our culture, the societal question becomes whether nondisease genetic engineering in humans is worth supporting and carrying-out or if the manipulation of genes for nondisease intentions is unethical and should be stopped. Genetic modification in humans merely for pure desire,without previously having being subjected to treatment for a medical reason is unethical, uncandid and should be stopped. Gene doping for nondisease purposes should not be accepted or carried out within society at any point.

initial post

            Many people don't know of Eugenics. Eugenics is a growing threat to the human race. For years it remained hidden in labs and only available and tested by scientists on animals and individual cells. As the years have progressed, so has the popularity of the process. Eugenics is the genetic alteration desired through the improvement of composition within human genes. Recently, it has broken out to the public. It has developed into methods of bettering athletes with gene modification, the newest leading project of creating "designer babies", opened up opportunities for animal and human cloning, and has been used for years to prevent,treat, and discover diseases and replace the infected genes/cells with genetically modified preimplantation of beneficial and curing DNA strands. Eugenics and Gene Therapy has been used for both disease treatment and experimentaion and for non-disease related experiments. Is the process of genetically modifying,enhancing, or altering genes in humans worth exploring by allowing further support and acceptance, or should we as a society decide that the manipulation of genes for non-disease purpose is unethical? For my persuasive essay I will side against the process entirely. I do not believe it is humanely right, as being such a powerful force as humans as we already are, to proceed to the extent to consider genetically modifying humans for non-disease purposes when we are made the way we are supposed to be.