Introduction
Human gene editing means improved technologies that allow materials to change, remove, or add to the human genome at a particular location. The technology was introduced to help human public health, support safety, and enhance effectiveness together with ethics. The argument is on research looking into the germline, heritable human genome editing, and somatic consultation. People have debated human genome editing for a long without having a final decision about the topic. The argument arises from the following stands: – human gene editing results in tampering with body tissue and might result in consequences without a cure, human gene editing should only take place if the treatment of the disease has no other way or cure, and the last situation is when some people hold other variable beliefs regarding human gene editing (Evans 146). The decision and consultation about this argument lasted for about two years. Variable culture and traditions were involved in evaluating the argument with the target of achieving a common opinion. The groups included priests, patients, indigenous citizens, researchers, and medical scientists.
Main body
Human gene editing has a chance to improve our capacity and ability to cure and treat various types of diseases. That stands as the main aim of genome modification. In the United States of America, the FDA introduced and approved insulin for humans; it was synthesized genetically in 1982 (National Academies of Sciences). It was to help people with diabetes type 1 whom their body could not produce insulin. Their bodies had unusual glucose levels that should change to maintain normal body functioning. The argument that strikes strong is that improved genome modification in a human being has advanced benefits because there are more advantages than disadvantages. Research has been improving and creating rooms and availability of channels for change in case an error occurs. There is erroneous development in the field of pharmacology because of gene modifications. Genetic engineering is evolving, and with time and improvements are being enhanced in areas that tend to be worrying. Genome modification holds promise in the future for treating complex diseases like HIV and AIDs, mental illness problems, cancer, and the most worrying, heart disease. The argument to enhance and support genome modification is relevant because of troubling diseases that currently have no cure. The only impact medical health practitioners have is to lower the speed of those diseases. To enhance success in genome editing, medical practitioners ensure that they are open to the patient, avail required pre- and post-clinical data to the patient, ensure the flow of assessment is continuous, and finally ensure there is no chance of contracting another problem while in hospital.
From this topic, ethical concerns arise on how genetic inheritance is enhanced. Changes made during human genome editing are typically on somatic cells, which are limited to other cells other than sperm cells and egg cells. Therefore, these changes will only impact that person under gene editing and will not transfer genes to the next generation. Research shows that changes made in germline cells or embryos will be transferred hereditary from one generation to the other. But to the research report, embryo, sperm, and egg cell editing results in many ethical challenges. These ethical challenges include whether it is advisable to use engineering technology to tamper with normal human beings’ cells. In statistical data, the USA is approximately to have used about 4 billion dollars used up to 2020 in gene-editing research. The research estimates about 10.8 billion will be used by the year 2030 (Kim 72). Most countries term germline and embryo gene editing as illegal based on ethical concerns.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the argument about human gene editing and modification will not end soon. As much as advantages outweigh disadvantages, researchers have not assured a solution if an error arises. But from my side of the argument, genome modification should be allowed to enhance and solve medical problems that are currently hard to solve. It will be of great benefit in the future if we put our ethical considerations aside for once and benefit with cure and genetic advancement of genes with admirable traits. The social norms and beliefs, together with religious stands, prevent genetic engineering in the human body, arguing that there are impacts we cannot control if an error in editing arises. But as we have seen from the topic, advancement in technology is being enhanced to support and control errors day in and day out. An example is in the advancements in farming where farm products and animals have improved, and farmers enjoy massive production like poultry farming. People should accept and allow researchers to do their work for a better tomorrow in gene editing (Stephen 186). The rate at which gene editing is rising is equivalent to our understanding of its moral implications. Advanced technologies will lift and change the challenge of inequalities where some people live with health complications and others live a short life. Genome modification will ensure balance by eliminating the chance of people having chronic diseases like cancer or HIV and AIDs. These will build a flourishing human world with actions that are moral to society.
Works cited
Evans, John H. Conclusion. The Human Gene Editing Debate, 2020.
Hilgartner, Stephen. Afterword: Governing Gene Editing. Gene Editing, Law, and the Environment, 2017.
Kim, Richard. Daoism, Flourishing, and Gene Editing. Human Flourishing in an Age of Gene Editing, 2019.
National Academies of Sciences; Engineering; and Medicine. Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. National Academies P, 2017.
Parens, Erik, and Josephine Johnston. Introduction to Human Flourishing in an Age of Gene Editing. Human Flourishing in an Age of Gene Editing, 2019.