To be Scientifically Altered or not To Be
Life is always changing. The trees respond to the change of the seasons by shedding their outfit of leaves for the winter and sprouting new life for the spring. Bears prepare themselves during the warmer parts of the earth's weather to hybernate in the colder months. And catepillars form and live in a chrysallus to metamorphasize into a beautiful butterfly. But, all of these changes happens with the aid of nature's self-organizing system. What about changes in living things that occur scientifically? Actually, it is quite possible. During the months of winter, strawberries can now withstand the frost created by the cold and still be sold
during their seasonal months. Tomatoes can have a longer shelf life
and can appear plumper and more colorful than before. And embryonic tissue can be used for stem cell research to help combat life threatening diseases. But, what are the consequences of a scientifically altered world? The process of genetic engineering that creates such things described before, has created a mass collection of opposing viewpoints.
and can appear plumper and more colorful than before. And embryonic tissue can be used for stem cell research to help combat life threatening diseases. But, what are the consequences of a scientifically altered world? The process of genetic engineering that creates such things described before, has created a mass collection of opposing viewpoints.One viewpoint, given by the Littletree Oriental Healing Arts, that supports genetic engineering, is the importance of recombinant DNA synthesis of human insulin. After the discovery of type I and type II diabetes, insulin had to be processed in order for the indivdual's survival. The first types of insulin were created from slaughtered pigs, but are now being phased out by new insulin. This new insulin, made by the recombinant DNA process, is made in bacteria, and now in yeast cells, in a way that the structure is identical to the natural insulin molecule. And when it is used, the geneticaly modified insulin is indistinguishable from pancreatic insulin. The new method of recombinant DNA syntheis of insulin is still under continous study and evaluation to ensure a complication free product for every individual. Although this viewpoint provides a positive stance, there are also many who do not agree with the use of genetic engineering.
Another viewpoit, provided by Ron Epstein, that opposes genetic engineering, is the awareness of specific difficulties with genetic engineering. Organsims that are created with unnatural combinations of genes and integrated into natural ecosystems, have a unique power to disrupt the equilibria that is maintianed in those ecosystems. And ecosystems may not be able to deal with the genetically modified organsims possible threats, because they were not designed to deal with unnaturally occuring species. For example, viruses that enter genetically engineered cells in the environment, can transfer the DNA structure of those cells to newly created viruses and spread to the viruses' new hosts. Then, that could lead to an epidemic, killing humans, animals, or plants. Another example, are in plants, that are genetically modified to be herbicide and pesticide resistant. It could lead to the creation of "super weeds" and "super pests" if they become resistant to the chemicals being used. This will create the viscious cycle of using stronger types of genetically altered plants to resist the stronger chemicals. Then leading to the exstinction of surrounding plants, birds, moths, and butterflies. And lastly, the genetic engineering of new types of insects, birds, fish, and animals, can displace natural species and squew the balance of other species due to genetically engineered behavior patterns. These two viewpoints share several differences in the issue of genetic engineering.
The first viewpoint, provides a positive outlook and an actual occurance on the use of genetic engineering. It uses a process that provides an indivdual a part of their body system that they could not produce themselves. And it gives the person a chance for a longer lifespan with comfort and ease. Whereas, the second viewpoint, provides a negative outlook and is used in hypothetical terms on the use of genetic engineering. It states several examples of disrupting the equlibria in natural ecosystems from genetically altered plants and animals. It gives the natural ecosystems a chance for a shorter lifespan from unnatural organsims contaminating the natural processes of life. While the first viewpoint presents the possibility for life in the present, the second viewpoint presents the possibility for death in the future.
Life is always changing in accordance with the earth's natural processes. But, life is also changing with the scientific processes of gentic engineering. The importance of recombinant DNA in synthesis of human insulin provides diabetics with treatment that matches identically with the natural molecule, and with the hope of no side effects. But on the other hand, the introduction of genetically engineered organsims into naturally assembled ecosystems can create damaging and irrevocable reacations. hope that genetic engineering can reach a happy medium in the future and maybe only be used for specific things, like creating insulin, instead of being used with ecosystems, like "new" plants and animals. We can only go so far to being scientifically altered before it is too late to go back.
Sources:
Pictures:
Articles:
1. Recombinant DNA technology in synthesis of human insulin (provided by Littletree.com)
2. Some specific difficulties with genetic engineering (provided by Genetic Engineering and its Dangers by Rob Epstein)
No comments:
Post a Comment