Take a stand on a genetic technology. Choose one of the following technologies: genetically modified food, transgenic organisms, gene therapy, embryonic stem cell research, adult stem cell research, umbilical cord blood research, human cloning, In vitro fertilization (IVF), cloning extinct organisms, and gene patenting (the breast cancer gene is a current topic).
***IMPORTANT: Only 5 people may choose the same topic...please check before submitting your answer...if you are the 6th person to use that technology, you will get no credit (sorry, but you have been warned!).
What you need to do:
TAKE A STAND...are you pro or con? Give 5 well-researched arguments that support your claim. Site any resources (web sites, articles, books, etc) that you use at the end of your blogspot. Also include your name.
p.s. You can't get this wrong as long as your work is original, well supported, and sited! :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
According to a 2006 article of Science Daily, further stem cells could potentially be developed thanks to their ability to repair extesive tissue damage. Great levels of success and potential have been shown from research using adult stem cells. In early 2009, the FDA approved the first human clinical trials using embryonic stem cells.In addition, embryonic stem cells are considered more useful for nervous system therapies, because researchers have struggled to identify and isolate neural progenitors from adult tissues. At the 2007 meeting of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), it was announced that his team had succeeded in producing three new stem cell lines without destroying the parent embryos. Therefore, seeing rapid progession, I, Lena Giaimo believe stem cell research should be appealed.
Genetically modified food-PRO
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php
pest control is one advantage to GMF becaus eit can stop bugs from eating the crops
disease resistance is also helpful because fungi,bacteria or something else can grow on the crop making it unable to sell
cold tolerance is also helpful because if a sudden freeze comes over the crops can still remain healthy
drought tolerance is also helpful for kepping the plant alive when there is a drought
and finally nutrition because we can grow more crops faster and bigger which would keep the supply of food high
Human Cloning
in my opinion, it is both right and wrong to clone humans. Its wrong to clone humans becuase of ethnical issues. If cloning does happen, it can damage the fetus, the pregnant woman, and the fetus, and would be most likely to fail. Also, human clonings could cause the world to be over populated. It is right to clone humans for surgical purposes and body parts. The cloned humans could be a solution to diseases and viruses.
http://www.shiftwits.com/pros-and-cons-of-human-cloning/
http://www.yenra.com/pros-and-cons-of-human-cloning/
Jessica Jaiyeola
According to Viacord there is great value in storing your baby's cord blood because it contains a source of non-controversial stem cells. From a Kids Health article I would have to say that I am for banking cord blood because it can help your child as well as siblings or close relatives in the case of a disease that requires getting new stem cells. I also like the fact that this decision to save the cord blood is left entirely up to the parents, its lets them remain in control of their decision 100% of the way. Another reason why I’m for it is because you can either store it in a public or private bank. I like this thought because you can not only benefit your family but another that needs more help than you do. It is very comforting to know that this procedure has been preformed since the 70’s and that the results are very effective. A finally reason why I’m for this because the kit that is necessary for drawing the blood needs to be ordered months in advance, I think that it gives the hospital a lot of time to make sure everything is okay and nothing is missing from the kit.
http://kidshealth.org/parent/pregnancy_newborn/pregnancy/cord_blood.html#
Megan Corey
I am pro for GM food:
-because of food growing in larger and more abondent amounts it could put a end to hunger.
-GM foods can also be enhanced with vitamins, minerals, and proteins that they ussually do not have.
-GM crops can also bring medicines to parts of the world where it is now to expensive to store and make them.
-Some environmental activists feel that GM crops help the world because they lowers the need for pesticides.
-GM foods are good because it could reduce the amount of money that you have to spend to buy grocries.
http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312650/food.htm
*~Tyler Holt~*
Human Cloning
The Human Cloning Foundation believes that cloning technology can be used to cure diseases and prolong life. The HCF also believes that blood can be cloned, organs can be cloned, and that infertility can be cured with the use of this new technology. They hope that cloning will help unlock the secrets of cancer and lead to its cure. Cloning should lead to remarkable advances in cosmetic and plastic surgery, as well as anti-aging therapies and other forms of rejuvenation. Cloning has already revolutionized biology and medicine. I agree with HCF, because it can do many remarkable things such as curing diseases and prolinging life.
http://www.humancloning.org/
Brooke Singer
Cloning extinct organisms seems completly wrong. Even though bringing back an extinct organism seems cool, there isn't any other purpose for cloning it other than to study it. Also, the organism probably became extinct for a reason. If we bring it back, would it even be able to survive in this climate? For instance,if scientists managed to successfully ressurect, it might die in this warmer climate. It might be cloned and immediately die. There is also a risk of the organism escaping into the wild. If the an animal like a saber-tooth tiger manages to escape, it might kill many people. There is also the chance of it reproducing with other organisms. There might possibly be hybrids of an organism that isn't supposed to exist running around everywhere. Bringing back an organism would be like playing God.
Dan-anh Tran
Genetically modified food is good for you. It has been been modified more because it prevents diseases and pestisides. There are very few bad things about gentically modified food. Mostly people are against because the don't think nature should be messed with not because the food is bad. I mean modified food has been passed for it to be sold as a food item so it must not be that dangerous if dangerous at all. The food is a lower price, more durability and nutritional value. All in all I think this type of is very good for you.
World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/
Human Cloning- pro
-Rejuvenation suggests that it may someday be possible to reverse the aging process because of what we learn from cloning.
-Human cloning technology could be used to reverse heart attacks. Scientists believe that they may be able to treat heart attack victims by cloning their healthy heart cells and injecting them into the areas of the heart that have been damaged.
-Infertility. With cloning, infertile couples could have children.
-Plastic, reconstructive, and cosmetic surgery. With the new technology, instead of using materials foreign to the body for such procedures, doctors will be able to manufacture bone, fat, connective tissue, or cartilage that matches the patients tissues exactly.
-Defective genes. The average person carries 8 defective genes inside them. These defective genes allow people to become sick when they would otherwise remain healthy. With human cloning and its technology it may be possible to ensure that we no longer suffer because of our defective genes.
http://www.humancloning.org/
erica vignola
Genetically Modified Food
Pro
- Growing GM foods can help eliminate the putting chemical pesticides and reduce the cost of bringing a crop to market
- Scientist are studying ways where GMF can cause less disease in food.
- Food such as rice does not have lots of nutrients. If rice could be genetically engineered to contain additional vitamins and minerals, nutrient deficiencies could be significantly lowered.
- GMF can also keep animals healthier by improving health and diagnostic methods.
- Lastly GMF does not hurt the environment at all. Unlike chemical spray GMF will help food, animals and humans.
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.phphttp://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml
Human Cloning-con
Human cloning should not be allowed. It is said that 30% of animal clones fail or are born with a defect. Research says because death is so popular with animal cloning, humans will be the same. A second reason is that scientists are not sure if cloning effects mental developement. A third reason why not to clone is because it is very expensive! If the results are not positive, people should not waste their money paying for something that does not work. Another reason is because scientific technology is not perfect; scientists can't promise anything. Lastly, if humans are cloned, over time, no one will be different; everyone will look alike and be similar.
www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml#ethics
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0122429/ethics/disadvantages.htm
Carly Greer
Genetically Modified Food - Pro
pest control is one advantage to this because it stops bugs from eating the crops.
It could also reduce the amount of money you would buy to spend on this food.
Also, this helps with nutrition and trying to make things easily and faster.
Lastly, it prevents diseases for you.
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php
Alexa Bertolini
umbilical cord blood research-con
-it can cause cancers,blood diseases and immune system disorders which require radiation and chemotherapy
-the radiation and chemotherapy can also become very costly for the families as well
-it can kill off healthy stem cells that are in the body
-many doctors have very little experience with transporting the umbilical cord blood
-the ill baby who in fact does receive the cord blood might be prone to have another type of disease.
http://kidshealth.org/parent/pregnancy_newborn/pregnancy/cord_blood.html#
cloning extinct organisms- con
The possibilities of reviving the viruses and/or germs that existed at the time that maybe the caused of why the animals were extincted. The extinction happened for a reason. Due to our society today, I personally don't think some of the people can handle a T-Rex coming back to life. (Jurassic Park 4...) The cost of this whole cloning extinct animal process may cost a lot of money, and where would the scientist get this large amount of money from? The world that the extincted animals lived isn't the one that they once had before. There are cities and towns that people live in. Resurrecting them is having the risk where they escape into the city and harm others, like having Godzilla attacking Tokyo. Cloned animals doesn't seem to last as long as the uncloned ones, probably because not everything in its body is not the same.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/05/cloned-species/mueller-text
Vivian Luk
Cloning Extinct Organisms-pro/con.
-I personally feel that cloning extinct organisms is not a great idea but can also be useful.
CON:
-I feel that in this world everything happens for a reason and all of the animals that are now extinct should stay that way. During these modern times the environment has changed greatly and so has our way of living and etc.
-By cloning extinct animals they can cause serious problems with humans and the environment. They also may not be able to survive in our time. Obviously there was something in their time that made them become extinct.
PRO:
-To state the other side of my opinion i think that by cloning extinct animals can be very useful because we can use the animals to get information about the past times and then that can help us kind of put the puzzle pieces of this world and extinction together.
http://extinctanimal.com/cloning.htm
Gene Patenting I believe is wrong. I am con. It is wrong for companies to patten the gene's they discover that could help cure genetic diseases. Currently the hot topic is the Breast cancer gene. The Company,Myriad Genetics Inc. ha put a patent on the gene that determines breast cancer. This company is the only one that can test it. It is wrong because these scientists are just a small group, they may be smart, but they might not have the right idea as how to test for the cure. They might not have the light bulb that goes off in their head. However, if the research is shared, then the cure can be found quicker. Also, I find it appalling that these people want to make money off of this so bad that they will slow the progression of finding a cure, just so they can have a little extra money. I believe that in this time,when more than about 40,000 women per year die from breast cancer,that is about 111 every day, these business people wouldn't find it in their hearts to just take the patent off this gene finding to help save more lives that are lost every day due to their selfishness. Another is that the time it takes for a few scientists to solve the equation, it could take many much less time. More people equals more failures equals more success. Also, many heads are better than one. With the minds that lurk society today there is bound to be a person who is daring enough to think of the out there idea to finding the cure that might just work. Plus with the technology that we have today there are so many ways to be connected to people across the globe that collaborations to find a cure are easier and quicker. The patent is a selfish thing in this case that is why I am completely against it. Knowing that there is a way for breast cancer to possibly be cured and having more people die each day because of some company's selfishness, hurts me.
Having lost quite a few of family members to cancer, one person having died of breast caner, it really touches home because knowing that there might maybe be a cure to this horrible disease and that its possibility of surfacing is long away it hurts. If the patent were given up than maybe there would be less loved ones that have died from breast cancer and more who are healed, and ready to begin their lives again.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-29/myriad-loses-ruling-over-breast-cancer-gene-patents-update1-.html
http://breastcancer.lifetips.com/faq/103415/0/how-many-women-die-from-breast-cancer-each-year/index.html
umbilical cord blood research- CON
Umbilical cord blood research is very dangerous because it can cause cancer and diseases. In order to get rid of these you would need to get chemotherapy.
The umbilical cord blood research will also possibly kill many of the good blood cells. The baby could have low blood and anemia after birth. It is also a lot of money do do the process.
http://kidshealth.org/parent/pregnancy_newborn/pregnancy/cord_blood.html#
Erin G.
IVF in vitro fertilization is useful for many things such as woman who cant get pregnet, or parents that are worried about their kids getting a genetic disease. I am pro IVF because it helps the human population in many ways. For example, if we continue picking healthy egg and sperm cells to implant into the woman, some genetic diseases may evuntally just dissapear.
-Jamie
I am con for gene patenting. First off all when companies patent genes causing disease they might not even have the best people fit for the job. When companies patent a gene they are slowing down the rate of research and how fast we will get to the cure. This is because if a company pantents a gene only they can work on it were as if it isn't patented anyone can contribute their research. Plus it cost extreme amounts of money for the research to happen. Lastly thier is a lose of expertise contributions. http://clinicalgenetics.blogspot.com/2008/03/gene-patenting-pros-and-cons.html
con gene patenting. they have bad quality control, rare accessability, its expensive, the researchers aren't a full expert in the section, Right of previous contributed researchers
http://clinicalgenetics.blogspot.com/2008/03/gene-patenting-pros-and-cons.html
IVF - Pro/con
1. I believe that IVF is a good idea, because if give chances to people who before the technology of IVF was introduced never would have had the chance to have children. It is not fair for a couple who want to have a child (in love, married and financially secure,) but cant because of an infertility problem. IVF give them a chance at something they wouldn't normally have.
2. However, there are some issues. For instance, everyone knows about the "Octomom" case and many people have wondered if this is morally right. Having a large amount of children is definitely a problem, because scientists insert more than one egg when preforming IVF to ensure impregnation. People wonder if it is right to let people run the risk of more than one child if they are unable to support them.
3. Also, an ethical question is raised. Nature has for whatever reason made it so that this couple is unable to have a child; many people wonder if it is right to interfere and change the process of life. The main argument is the we should not be "playing god," and that it isn't our right to change natures course.
4. 6.1 million people in the United States are affected by infertility and many of those people deal with medical, psychological and financial stresses related to their condition. IVF can help up to 90% percent of these people. Not only does it help physically, but also mentally.
5. The final reason IVF is good is that even if you don't produce eggs, it is still possible to have a baby because of egg donors. It is the same thing for sperm donors.
Nicholas verni
Gene Therapy
I am against the use of gene therapy. It has not yet been perfected and isn't as simple as it seems. There are many complications that come with this process and it is a very risky procedure.
1. Viral vectors have to be carefully controlled and monitored correctly or it can infect the patient with a viral disease.
2. Retroviruses can enter cells that are functioning properly and interrupt their natural biological processes. This can lead to different diseases.
3. Therapies are not always a one time thing. Often therapies need to be repeated a number of times to account for long lasting benefits.
4. Many genes play a part in turning genes on or off. The genes need to be regulated in order to do so or can lead to tumor formation or even cancer.
5. We still need to learn more about how to make the gene spring into action when it is needed. One thought is to attach other genes to act as an on/off signal. These aspects have not been clarified completely and are still fairly new.
I'm against gene therapy. It's not the safest resource to turn to.
http://www.healthline.com/galecontent/gene-therapy-1/6?utm_medium=ask&utm_source=smart&utm_campaign=article&utm_term=gene+therapy&ask_return=Gene+Therapy#thefutureofgenetherapy
Cloning extinct organisms seems completly wrong. Even though bringing back an extinct organism seems cool, there isn't any other purpose for cloning it other than to study it. Also, the organism probably became extinct for a reason. If we bring it back, would it even be able to survive in this climate? For instance,if scientists managed to successfully ressurect, it might die in this warmer climate. It might be cloned and immediately die. There is also a risk of the organism escaping into the wild. If the an animal like a saber-tooth tiger manages to escape, it might kill many people. There is also the chance of it reproducing with other organisms. There might possibly be hybrids of an organism that isn't supposed to exist.
Genetically Modified Food-con
-The changed produce may create new allergies.
-New genes in food may be a health risk for many people.
-The changed pollen can create new stronger breeds of weeds, which will hurt the over all crop.
-Changing food genetically would be very expensive.
-insects may become resistant to negative insects such as mosquitoes.
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php
Post a Comment