Could Your Genes Hold You Back?

I just finished reading this article by Stephanie Armour from SIRS Researcher. This article talks about how new scientific discoveries mandate employees to submit to DNA tests. Like GATTACA (see post below), except real, this article discusses how people are being discriminated against based on their genes. USA Today found that many applicants are being denied jobs because their DNA tests depict that they are predisposed to certain conditions and traits that have the potential to cost companies a lot more money. Just like the fantasy world of GATTACA, people are being denied a spot in the workplace because of their genetic makeup. This could possibly create a lower class of undesirable traits/genes. A survey that was done by USA Today shows that many companies are already not informing their employees about what medical tests are being done on them. Kim Roembach-Ratliff, a 39-year-old teacher from Kansas, told USA Today that she could not receive coverage from her insurance company because a test revealed that her unborn son had spina bifida, a fault in the spinal cord that can lead to paralysis. So, in answer to the article's main question: yes, your genes can hold you back. Your DNA is not something that you can hide under your clothes or in your brain; it is an identification card that is forever chained to your body. If genetic engineering was introduced into our world, the people who were created organically would be discriminated against. Why hire a person who has a 100% chance of developing a heart condition when you can hire the 100% healthy, GM one? The business industry does not tiptoe around people's emotions. They will take the best and they will take the ones that cost them the least amount of money. The engineering of humans would cause this exact problem, along with many others. 

Narrowing It Down

I have decided to focus my research solely on the genetic engineering of humans because the subject of genetic engineering is a little too broad. I picked humans because to many people, it seems a lot less tangible to genetically engineering a human than an animal, plant, or food (which have all been done before). The whole concept is surrounded by uncertainty and almost a little bit of fear. I think it would be interesting to investigate the current status of human engineering, the pros and cons, and where it has the potential to go from there.

Biotech on the Farm: Realizing the Promise

I just finished reading this article originally from "Futurist." It discusses the potential that genetic engineering has but also the precautions that we must take to ensure its safety and reliability. The passage began by listing some positives and negatives of biotechnology. One issue, toxic-waste cleanup, could largely benefit our society ecologically and economically. Genetically modified (GM) bacteria could eat up toxic materials which would be less expensive than conventional cleanup methods. But, unforeseen problems could arise, and you have to be very careful when cleaning up hazardous waste.

Scientists can GM plants so that they produce their own insect-killing toxins. Although insect pesticides are used to protect plants, they are dangerous to the environment and also expensive. Butterflies have died when scientists have tested the GM plants because they try to eat it. If they survive, though, they could potentially produce their breed of insects that are difficult to kill. It's hard to tell where you draw the line. I think that it should vary per situation. I do not think that any GM bacteria, plant, crop, etc. should be produced unless extensive tests have proved that they have no negative effects on the environment (including long-term effects). What is not visible at first sight may have a drastic effect later on. Also, as a citizen, do we have a right to know what is genetically engineered? For example, if you are at a grocery store, should a tomato be required to have a "GM" sticker on it? It think so. People have the right to decide what kinds of food they eat. To many, this decision is influenced by where the food comes from and if it is naturally grown.

GATTACA

I watched the movie GATTACA which is about a man named Vincent Freeman who was born naturally into a now genetically-enhanced world. Now, when you are born, the likelihood of disease and life expectancy are ascertained at birth. Myopic, due to die at age 30, and with a 99% chance of heart problems, Vincent does not have the opportunity to demonstrate his brains because he does not have the genes. Instead of discrimination against different races or religions, people are discriminated against based on their genetic make-up. Similar to the untouchables in India's caste system, people who are born the old-fashioned way, often called "Invalids," are at the bottom of society's hierarchy. So, Vincent goes underground and assumes the identity of a crippled "Valid" named Jerome Morrow. He uses Jerome's skin, hair, blood, and urine to constantly pass DNA tests so that he work at Gattaca Corp. and fulfill his lifelong dream: to embark on a manned mission to Saturn's 14th moon. With only weeks away from his launch date, the mission director is murdered and the police suspect Vincent Freeman (from an eyelash found in a hallway). Vincent now has to keep himself from arousing the police's attention while maintaining his fake identity while passing all of the random DNA tests.

Although this movie was not in the horror genre, it scared me. Not only does the world of GATTACA seem like something that might actually happen, but it seems like it already has in a way. We don't have rockets launching to Mars as often as air crafts, but certain groups of people have attempted to "purify" the world many different times. The Rwandan genocide is representative of this idea because of the Hutu's attempt to exterminate the Tutsi ethnic group. Another example is are the Nazis and their discrimination. GATTACA takes this idea of purification and prejudice to a whole new level. It is a believable world because technology is advancing every day; it's something that could ultimately ending up hurting the human race instead of helping them.

Vincent was born naturally, but his brother was genetically engineered. There was a scene in the movie where his parents had a consultation with a doctor in which they picked the gender of their baby-to-be and what diseases or disorders they did not want him to contract. They said that they wanted to leave some things up to chance, such as his hair and eye color. But at this point, did that really matter? This baby was not going to be organic anyways. This movie provided a lot of insight into what the world has the potential to one day be and it will be beneficial to taking a stance on this issue.

Genetic Engineering: Overview

I decided to research genetic engineering for the Marketplace of Ideas project. I am not entirely sure of where I stand on the issue, so I want to get a better understanding of its multiple perspectives. When I first came across this topic, I really only saw one side of the controversy. GE clearly affects the natural properties of plants, food, and animals. I could not see how it could be considered a positive contribution to society-- it brought on so many issues. Another problem I saw in it was the fact that one day, it will be possible for parents to selective certain traits and characteristics for their children to have. What would the world be like if parents were making their kids incredibly tall or specifically with brown eyes. There is definitely an ethical dilemma here. But, what I did not realize before, is that there are many positive components to GE. Simply by reading the short page that gives an overview of GE on the website, Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society, I was able to broaden my knowledge on the subject. Where there is a moral reason not to use GE, there is also a moral reason to use it. According to the World Health Organization, for example, 250,000 to 500,000 children in developing countries go blind every year because their diet lacks sufficient levels of vitamin A. But, scientists can genetically engineer plants or rice, for example, to give these children the nutrients they need to survive. The moral dilemma is simple: If you genetically engineer something, you remove the naturalness of a process. But if you do not genetically engineer that something, you would be withholding useful produce from people who would desperately benefit from it. Genetic engineering is a complex issue that is becoming more and more pressing with the advancement of technology and desperation for resources. I look forward to pursuing this issue.

What's Going On In The World?

One of the most prominent issues in the world today is the revolt that is going on in Libya. I read a couple articles and blogs on The New York Times's website about the situation. It seems like Africa has always had the reputation of being poor and underdeveloped, but its problems have also seemed to be out of our hands. For example, how can you really eliminate poverty even in one African country? The protests in Egypt, Tunisia, and other countries appeared to give Libyan citizens the courage to stand up to their government. But, Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi is firmly holding his ground. Ruling for longer than Egyptians former president, Mubarak, Qaddafi is an unpredictable and harsh ruler. He has no problem commencing a civil war in his country. So, what should the U.S. do? One point of view is that America needs to intervene by supplying Libya's rebel army. Some believe we should pressure other countries to intervene but watch from afar. Others think that by getting involved yet again in a foreign affair, we could end up in another undesirable situation like Afghanistan. I am under the impression that if we do not intervene, we are not only disregarding an opportunity to promote democracy, but we are also letting Gaddafi's troops kill innocent civilians. He has proved to be a relentless and very unreasonable leader. I don't think that just giving the Libyan rebels arms is enough, though. I believe we need to direct Libyans to the most efficient way to remove Gaddafi from power. I think the advantages of intervening outweigh the disadvantages.  

State of the Union Address

I always look forward to the State of the Union address because it is a time when the president is supposed to tell the country what is going on, not the media. I was especially looking forward to this year's address because I had heard that the members of Congress and guests that were attending the speech were going to be sitting amongst each other instead of divided by party. I thought this was a really smart idea because it always appeared childish to me when the each side would stand up and clap (for, in my opinion, unreasonably long periods of time) when they agreed with something that the president said. Although there was some obvious division amongst avid clappers, the speech seemed to have a different atmosphere. It felt like there was a little less tension and everyone seemed more civilized.

There were a couple of things about Obama's address that I liked, and there were a couple things about it that I didn't like. To begin, I thought he did a good job on saying things that were appealing to everyone. I believe that it was smart to not say anything extremely controversial (or declare a fixed opinion on sensitive issues) because it definitely did not create such a tense atmosphere. The only things he gave the impression that he was absolutely passionate and adamant about were issues that most everyone agreed with, such as rebuilding our country's economy. This was smooth on Obama's part, but I was also disappointed that he gave such vague solutions to certain problems. It definitely lightened the blow about some issues that require in-depth solutions, but I did not feel a heap of reassurance that he knew exactly what measures need to be taken to find reasonable solutions. He sort of danced around the tough topics by playing up his exceptional speaking skills and saying inspirational things about education and winning the future. He did a good job at pleasing the majority by not taking a contentious stance on certain issues, but I don't think he did not give a deliver enough specifics on the state of our union.