DIY Fetus!

Today, genetic modification in agriculture is a well accepted practice, but the introduction of altering genetic makeup in childbirth is facing an entirely different reaction. Considering the significant impact this innovation will have on the future of humanity, it’s only expected for people to have their doubts about the social and ethical implications genetic modification poses on society. With every great invention comes great consequences – and the introduction of designer babies is no different.

The notion of using genetic modification to prevent diseases is received with open arms by the majority of society, but its use for cosmetic purposes is faced with a great deal of criticism and repulsion. To cure one of a disease that might damage their quality or length of life is to do well, but to alter one’s physical appearance for unnecessary reasons is seen as a superficial way of playing God. A number of safety concerns regarding genetic modification also pose as a potential threat to the well-being of children. Because many genes carry more than one particular trait, the modification of a gene to increase intelligence might also cause increased sensitivity to pain. Moreover, the ability to choose particular traits for your children would also build the foundation for a ‘super race’ of humans. Considering that these pricey options would be available only to those with the money, it would create an even larger gap between the wealthy and the poor. With the choice of preventing mental deficiencies or homosexuality in children, these marginalized groups would grow smaller while experiencing even more intensive forms of persecution. (PGD - Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, the process in which particular genes are selected to be placed or removed from a cell^)

On the other hand, how can it be denied that genetic modification will significantly improve the quality of life of many people? Millions of people all around the world who might’ve potentially fallen victim to a life-threatening disease can live in peace because of genetic modification. The purpose of technological advancement and progression in society is to find ways to improve the general quality of life. What better way than to eliminate genetic diseases from the very root of the problem? – in the genetic make-up of potential patients. At the moment, this method of genetic modification causes absolutely no form of direct harm to the members of society. None of the universally accepted standards of human rights are breached in any way through the processes of genetic modification; meaning in no way is there a negative effect on the well-being of society. In fact, the issue can easily be compared to the consumption of particular foods during pregnancy to increase the intelligence of children where it is nothing but a harmless decision that belongs solely to the mother.

There’s no doubt that designer babies can create an even greater imbalance between different social classes, but as of now, the level of technology hasn’t yet reached a state in which a superior race could evolve. Since no-one is being harmed through this genetic modification, it’s safe to say that it’s just another harmless option open to soon-to-be parents.

Sources:

- "Designer Babies." Buzzle.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2010. .
- "Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations." ActionBioscience.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2010.      .
- "What is a Designer Baby?" Bionet. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2010. .  
- "Who's Afraid of Designer Babies?"  BBC Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2010. sn/tvradio/
                  programmes/horizon/babies_prog_summary.shtml>.

Commented On:
Derek Li's 'Genetic Engineering - For Health Reasons... And Good Looks?'
Alex Cabaj's 'Designer Babies'

Correction over Conservation

All life on Earth has a place on an interconnected web, which means that the diminishing numbers of other species will eventually put our human health and safety at peril.

So now that we’re all on the same page, how do we solve the problem of disappearing species? Easy; we breed the animals and put them back in their respective wild habitats. Well, the problem is it really isn’t as simple as it sounds. In fact, there’s still a lot of controversy surrounding this method of rehabilitating the environment due to the lack of success. But to keep our hopes up, the truth is that there have been several incidences in which the reintroduction of species in an ecosystem has been successful, however difficult the process.

(The California Condor being released into the wild after it has been deemed capable of surviving and reproducing on its own without human assistance)

The idea of reintroduction is to keep endangered species captive in a well-controlled environment until they are ready to be released into the wild where they continue to populate. The first step in reintroducing a species is determining the reasons for the population decline and finding ways to address or eliminate these other elements. For example, if the reason for a species’ declining numbers is a result of hunting, then it’s necessary to set laws that prohibit the killing of these animals. For the reintroduction of animals to a wild habitat, special care must be put into ensuring that the animals can survive on their own without human assistance. This usually means the animals are kept captive in an environment where they are forced to fend for themselves until they are deemed ready to be set free into the wild under tight supervision. This process may become extremely difficult, especially when dealing with young animals that tend to imprint on human care-givers and eventually become accustomed to captivity. The most obvious purpose of reintroducing a plant species would be to provide a reliable and familiar food source for animals. Aside from this, reintroducing plants in an environment can also choke out other invasive and non-native species.

The Californian Condor is a perfect example of a successful reintroduction effort. This bird of an incredible 9-feet long wingspan became highly endangered due to hunting and the extinction of its prey. At the time when they were taken into captivity, there were only 22 Californian Condors left in the world. Over a tedious process that spanned over many decades, three populations which each contained at least 150 Condors and 15 breeding pairs were raised and finally released back into the wilderness of northern Arizona. Since then, efforts to reintroduce this incredible bird to its other native homes have been initiated.

(The California Condor soaring across the jagged cliffs of Northern Arizona. At this point it is entirely self-sustainable >)

With the need for constant supervision and periodic testing, the reintroduction of species definitely isn’t an easy or inexpensive method of recovering the environment. However, reintroduction has brought about something that conservation alone cannot achieve: it has corrected human error. With the ability to give back what we’ve taken, we can positively affect the biodiversity of our ecosystems rather than hopelessly preserve what’s left of our mistakes.

Commented on:

BioBlog - Sea Shepherd Conservation; by Nicole Duffy-LeBlanc

Caitlin's Bio Blog - Green Peace; by Caitlin Cosgrove

Sources:

· "What Is Reintroduction?" Wise Geek. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2010.

. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-reintroduction.htm

· "The California Condor on the Colorado Plateau." Land Use History of North America. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2010.

. http://cpluhna.nau.edu/Biota/california_condor.htm

· "Habitat Loss, Biodiversity, Conservation." Morris Course. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2010.

. http://morriscourse.com/elements_of_ecology/chapter_28.htm.

· "Wisdom of Reintroductions." Why Files. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2010.

. http://whyfiles.org/015species_restore/lessons.html.