Monday, March 24, 2014
Listening #8: Post-debate thoughts (due Wednesday)
Now that our debates about genetic engineering have concluded, I'd like to know where you stand on the issue. Did any of the debates either change or confirm your initial stand? If so, what evidence or arguments did you find persuasive? In addition to the debates, you can draw on the lecture we listened to in class, the video links posted on the blog, or your own research to support your position.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have never changed my opinion on the GE in agriculture and animals. Just like what I said in the debate,this is a risk on the GE in agriculture.If this is successful ,it must be helpful without hesitation. But if it fails,it will waste a lot of money and produce much more problems.So I am always against the GE in agriculture and animals.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I would like to say thanks Holly for giving us this opportunity. Debating is not just important for academic life, but also for the work experience when we are required to participate in meetings for convincing people for a project, for instance.
ReplyDeleteFor this experience, my initial position was against to the GE for agriculture, it was difficult to me to find positive arguments. I'm still not one hundred percent convinced, but I was surprisingly enchanted with a project in Philippines called Golden Rice which can save million of children from blindness, and I thought myself how many people could be saved form starvation and diseases.
However, there is no evidence about its safety, I couldn't find any research that show this issue. Another point is related to the financial manipulation which is concentrated in big companies that explores it intensively. Moreover, I could noticed that are many rumors around it which make me ask: where is the truth or if there are just speculation.
Having so many points uncovered, it's necessary to read more about it in order to clarify my questions.
Actually, I am not in one side, I cannot say it is totally good or totally bad. Genetic Engineering includes some advantages at the same time a lot of risks under the results. For instance, in vitro fertilization gives people to have a baby, and I have never heard that caused a problem after their born. Additionally, scientists try to find some solutions to the chronic diseases such as Alzheimer and diabetes… On the other hand, I should say I am definitely opposite of GE in agriculture, because it involves changing the organism’s nature. In other words, I am for to fix the problematic genes or to fight with the diseases, but I am against to change the organic life and nature of the plants.
ReplyDeleteI haven't changed my minde about GE,I'm totally agents it anddon't think anyone play with itbecause it's dengarous and it could be risky sometimes.besides it like you playing GOD!
ReplyDelete*and I don't think anyone should
DeleteI still support for against in using GE in argiculture . Nowadays thanks to development of Genetic Engineering in Agriculture, there are many new types of seed which are produced helps famers improve their productivity in both quality and quantity. However, besides advantages, it also has some disadvantages that we need to be concerned such as insect resistance, harm to soil and wildlife, and negative affects to human life. Moreover, GE is unfair for farmers because Biotechnology companies force farmers to sign contracts when purchasing their genetically engineered seeds and crops. These grower's contracts prevent farmers from being able to store seeds from year to year. It is more benefits for the companies to sell their product because farmers cannot store seed for long time. To sum up , I think there is need to proceed with caution in use and the absolute necessity of creating as well as enforcing ethical legislation to prevent bad effects on the environment and human health which is an inevitable outcome to the fast development of genetic engineering.
ReplyDeleteI still thinking in the same way, I do believe that Genetic Engineering in humans is unethical and goes against the human right which is: every single human have the right to live. Getting a good human clone, for instance, will involve millions of deaths of others humans beings. In addiction the ability to choose our children characteristics before their are born would promote a lot of social inequalities and lead parents to put a lot of pressure to their children because of their expectations. Even though I believe that Genetic Engineering has a lot of negative points, I do need to admit that in somehow it has been giving opportunity to live to some people by curing some chronic diseases, but it still not enough to convince me.
ReplyDeleteNon of the debates made me change where i stand from GE, if we look back to most of the things that man tried to change or manipulate turned out bad or were used in the worst way possible. I believe that the most important thing that we should take care of is our food, water and environment, manipulating out food genes or characteristics will eventually do more harm than good in the future.
ReplyDeleteBeing carefully in the treatment that we give modified crops and animals and how it can be used in humans, genetic engineering can be the key on the next step on the human’s evolution. In both agriculture and also in human application the genetic engineering can be the solution for problems like feeding the growing world’s population and preventing human and animal’s illness with vaccines or other medication. However, everything about genetic engineering is not perfect. I believe that we need international laws that prevent possible disaster like the “super monsters” that we discuss in past lectures, and these laws can establish that the use of genetic engineering, specially in humans in which case need to have medico-scientist bases stead of a merely hunch of people that might want a blue-skin child, for example.
ReplyDeleteWith or without the debate, I always believe that governments should set a limit on genetic engineering for human or else we can never know how far it will go to the point of cloning human. Not to mention what may come after we succeed in cloning a perfect human being, only the thought of how to treat hundreds or thousands of trial versions which we use to test to create a perfect one is complicated and controversy enough. Should they be treated like human with all the rights and obligations, or can we only see them as defective "products" with no future? Thus, even though genetic engineering was initiated with good purposes, it is still too risky to go against nature and try to design life in our own ways without acknowledging all the outcomes.
ReplyDeleteAfter the debates my position is the same, I still believe that GE in Agriculture is not the best solution to out problems. As I mention in the debate, Animals that are subjects of experiments are exposed to a great deal of pain, many of whom lose their lives in the process, several of whom lose the capacity to procreate, and the results can be seen after many trials. For example, in order to create dolly 277 trials were made and 107 fatalities were the result of trying to play with their gens and its DNA. Of course GE in crops and plants it might have some great benefits. However, if you make an analysis cost/benefits you might found out that more are the problems that comes to GE, and the affections that could attack human beings in a near future. Consequently, GE in Agriculture is not the solution to our problems.
ReplyDeleteNone of the debates made me change my mind about GE. I'm a biologist and i spent 4 years to learn this new technology and try to use it in our life. people always afraid of new things, they can't accept it from the beginning, so they against and refuse to use it. however, after they know what benefit it bring to us they start to try to understand this new tech. So, my point is, GE is not a bad thing, don't judge it before you understand it, try to accept it and try to make it better. if you have a sick child would you use GE to cure he or she? If the answer is yes, then you shouldn't against it.
ReplyDelete