Genetically Modified Organisms: Blessing or Curse?
Playing God is a human fascination. We relish the idea that we are the masters of our world, desiring absolute control over every process and task. We stand up against the limitations placed upon our species with ingenuity and creativity, and it was with this same creative spirit that we decided to go down a dangerous path: altering the very blueprint of life. In nature, DNA has difficulty crossing between species. However, with our modern tools, we routinely cross genomes for crossbreed benefits. Critics believe that we open ourselves to a world of danger, allowing unheard of (and potentially very dangerous) mutations. Proponents argue that the benefits far outweigh any potential risks. Hardier crops, stronger livestock, removed mutations– all are possible with our new genome editing tools. Currently, these genetically modified organisms have proven harmless; they have done only good (crops that can survive the cold, no need of pesticides, etc). However, no matter how well we plan out a situation, nothing ever goes exactly as planned.
Questions:
- Should genetically modifying organisms be allowed?
- If so, what limits (if any) should be put on this editing?
- What are some ethical ramifications of allowing genome editing?
Genetically modified organisms have been a part of everyday life since prehistoric times. Ever since humans first learned how to modify plants and animals via artificial selection, the species has thrived on a scale that would be inconceivable just a few millennia ago. Recently however, we as a species have discovered how to cut out the middleman and modify the genetic code of organisms directly. The benefits of these revisions as mentioned include making crops more resistant to pests, having a more appetizing appearance, and simply tasting better. These are difficult factors to ignore when assessing the efficacy of GMOs. Like any process in the food industry however, genetic modification must be kept under government regulation in order to prevent the emergence of unethical practices. All sorts of conundrums could develop if the industry were not regulated, whether it be the cloning of organisms, or modifying animals in a way that could result in them experiencing excessive pain.
ReplyDeleteI am glad that you brought up the topic of GMOs as the ethics of it are a highly debated topic. With resources on our planet becoming more scarce on every passing day it makes sense for us to start genetically creating our own. GMOs prove to be a double edged sword as for the mutations that may occur. I do think that genetically modifying organisms should be allowed but the risks should also be included with, like the surgeon general’s warning with cigarettes. I do believe that there should be limit on how much altering can be placed on an organism so that extreme side effects from consuming them will not happen.
ReplyDeleteGenetically Modified Organisms is a great topic to bring up because there is huge debate between the risk and benefits of this practice. I am caught in between if we should allow GMOs or not because I see there are plenty of benefits as well as risk. I agree with DJ’s point that GMOs can be a double-edged sword because allowing GMOs have significantly increased the crop yield, yet there have been some side effects from consuming these products. An example of a side effect is many relatives of mine have become gluten intolerant due to the genetically modified wheat.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I am all about GMOs in terms of the medical and dietary benefits that arise from this incredible break through in science. According to the source you shared, no real issues have been found with the current genetic modification techniques being used, and future ones will also be tested as dangerous or not before being open to the public - so there really is no immediate danger here. I think the biggest ethical issue is human GMOs as a future threat. I remember discussing in a high school AP Biology class about the increasing debates surrounding modifying the genes of human fetuses, to eliminate detrimental genes such as diseases or disabilities that may be found during early doctors visits. Obviously, this can be seen from many different perspectives (religious, political, ethical) as accepted or not, but it comes across as incredibly unnatural in a way that modifying the genes of wheat does not. So, as with all science, there should be and certainly are various limitations and laws in action.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThis article raises an interesting question and I believe that there is a fine line between how far genetically modified organisms should be allowed to go. Some genetically modified crops help decrease erosion, which could help pollution through the decrease of soil run off that carries harmful toxins. But that being said, if everything becomes genetically modified, we will be majorly altering the way life is supposed to be carried out. There are a lot of unknown outcomes with genetically modified organisms, and I believe that this should stop with a select group of crops. Playing god could have an outcome that we are unprepared for.
I agree with the author that GMOs are very beneficial to us and also to the environment. However, I also agree with Megan in that playing God could have an outcome that we are unprepared for. The question is always do the benefits outweigh the risks? I think, as of now, the benefits do outweigh the risks, but I am very hesitant for scientists to experiment any further. Just because we have dabbled in GMOs and haven’t faced any serious repercussions yet, doesn’t mean further work won’t have repercussions; however, this is the attitude most people had when scientists began working with GMOs in the first place. I think all in all there is no good answer for at what point should we place limits on editing. I think this goes back to what you said in your summary in that no matter how well we plan out a situation, nothing ever goes exactly as planned.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting question. As Jacob mentioned, genetic modification has existed for thousands of years in the form of selective breeding. The way we do it nowadays, however, is definitely different than selective breeding (not that we don't still do selective breeding). I don't personally see a problem with genetic modification as we do it today. It's only done good so far and if we have safeguards in place, it will stay that way. I don't know that any restrictions should be put on what we can do to organisms, I just think that there should be very tight regulation to make sure there aren't any unforseen adverse effects of the editing. For example, if a population is too genetically similar, they'll all be susceptible to the same diseases, which could leave humanity without some key food sources. As for ethical dilemmas, I don't personally see any.
ReplyDelete