Expert answer:I need help Asap
Solved by verified expert:Reading assignment:Jamieson text, p. 144-152. (NOTE:
this reading assignment has nothing whatever to do with the test below.
I’d suggest finishing the test first, prior to doing the reading, so as
to avoid confusion.) Third Exam: Instructions— Your responses should be approximately the word total suggested for each of the five questions. These suggestions are approximate; do not obsess about hitting these numbers exactly. The text must be double spaced, and printed single-sided, with 1.5” left/right margins, with pages stapled together. (NOTE:
there is a 1/3 letter grade penalty for noncompliance with each of
these underlined factors. For a heading on the paper, use whatever you
like as long as your name is present, and whatever font, type size, you
like.) You must bring the paper to the class on Monday the 6th, during class time. Alternatively, if you can’t be in class, you must have someone else turn it in on your behalf. For example, you may email it to a classmate and have them print and submit it (or you may have anyone else bring it to class). If you do not turn in a paper during class time (or have one turned in on your behalf) on Monday the 6th, you will receive an F for the test. Questions: 1. For abortion to be considered wrong, Thompson says “…we need to
[show] that killing the fetus violates its right to life, i.e., that
abortion is unjust killing.” What analogy (thought experiment) does she
use to consider the situation; how is this applicable to pregnancy
arising from voluntary intercourse? (100 wds) [Note: Base answers only
on the part of Thompson’s article read in this class.] 2. Once a decision has been made for a terminally ill patient to
die, is “letting the person die” better than “taking active measures” to
end the person’s life? Briefly give Rachel’s view; use most of the word count to say whether or not you agree, and why or why not. (100 wds) 3. Singer says that if his principle was actually acted upon, it
would have profound implications, and that our world would be
fundamentally changed. Describe and explain two of these
implications/changes. (100 wds) 4. Warren says animals have rights, while saying that these are not
the same as moral rights accorded to people. What does she name as a
distinguishing characteristic, what does she list as implications
flowing from that characteristic, and are there any exceptions to the
necessity of this characteristic? (100 wds) 5. Do you think society should encourage and/or permit gene editing?
If so, for which purposes—therapeutic or enhancement?; both/neither/one
or the other? What effects might any decision have on society? Whatever
your say—to any part of any question—give a reasoned analysis
supporting your position, but briefly. (between 100-150 words).
enhanced.docx
is_gene_editing_ethical.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Science debate: Should we embrace an enhanced
future?
By Dr Alexander Lees
9 September 2017
To write this article, I drank a beverage containing an effective cognitive enhancer – something
that helps me – almost daily – to focus.
In my pocket, I carry an extension of my memory, on which I made notes for this very story.
Caffeine and smart phones might not strike most people as human enhancements, but in
changing how we use our bodies and brains, they are exactly that. They improve our subjective
wellbeing and facilitate our meeting day-to-day life goals.
The rather more futuristic-sounding concept of transhumanism – the idea that every human
should have the right to enhance themselves beyond the so-called “norm” through science and
technology – was the subject under scrutiny at a debate this week at the British Science
Association Festival in Brighton.
The big question being posed: do we all have the right to enhance our bodies as technology and
pharmaceuticals will allow, or is that immoral? As the probably over-used term has it, would that
be “playing God”? And who gets to decide?
First we should be frank about what is a correction – a medical fix – and what is an enhancement.
Eyeglasses and contact lenses would be seen by most people as falling in the correction category,
restoring sight to normal levels. However, although everyone may strive for 20-20 vision and
invest in the technology to get it, such acute sight is far from normal and in many cases more
enhancement than correction.
There is no easy line to draw between medicine and enhancement, because the very notion of
“normal” is not easy to define. And as science and technology moves on, we have a new and
ever-changing normal.
Moral drug maze
Ritalin a central nervous system stimulating drug is used by people unable to maintain normal
levels of concentration. It is often prescribed for those who suffer from attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
However, it is also in now widespread use as a “smart drug” – to enhance the concentration of
people without ADHD. This form of enhancement, often by students battling to hit tight
deadlines, has proven very controversial.
Critics of such smart drugs argue that they give users an unfair advantage. But others points out
that exams have never been a level playing field – some people can afford the luxury of personal
tutors, while others have to work in full-time jobs to support themselves in higher education.
Many people find the idea of any such cognitive enhancement deeply troubling, but what if, as
Rebecca Roache, a philosopher at Royal Holloway, University of London argued at the festival
debate, “this might be the fastest way to find a cure for cancer?”
That, she pointed out would benefit everyone.
So is it then immoral not to attempt to upgrade people for the sake of improving society? And
who and what should we be upgrading?
Sarah Chan from the University of Edinburgh argued that research into enhancement should be
directed towards helping those who are worst off in society first.
If not, as Florence Okoye of the Natural History Museum noted, enhancement could magnify
already existing societal inequalities.
This then opens up the question of whether society’s goal should be to make upgrades available
for everyone.
Are we all enhanced?
Most humans are now enhanced to be resistant to many infectious diseases. Vaccination is
human enhancement. Apart from “anti-vaxxers” – as those who lobby against childhood
inoculations are often dubbed – most of us are content to participate. And society as a whole
benefits from being free of those diseases.
So what if we took that a pharmaceutical step further. What if, as well as vaccines against polio,
mumps, measles, rubella and TB, everyone also “upgraded” by taking drugs to modify their
behaviour? Calming beta-blocker drugs could reduce aggression – perhaps even helping to
diffuse racial tension. Or what if we were all prescribed the hormone oxytocin, a substance
known to enhance social and family bonds – to just help us all just get along a little better.
Would society function better with these chemical tweaks? And might those who opt out become
pariahs for not helping to build a better world – for not wanting to be “vaccinated” against antisocial behaviours?
And what if such chemical upgrades could not be made available to everyone, because of cost or
scarcity? Should they be available to no one? An enhanced sense of smell might be useful for a
career in wine tasting but not perhaps in rubbish disposal.
A case in point is military research – an arm of which is already an ongoing transhumanism
experiment.
Many soldiers on the battlefield routinely take pharmaceuticals as cognitive enhancers to reduce
the need to sleep and increase the ability to operate under stress. High tech exoskeletons,
increasing strength and endurance, are no longer the realms of science fiction and could soon be
in routine military use.
The US military, always a research leader, has recently tested electrical brain stimulation, which
was shown to improve increase multitasking skills and performance in people using flight
simulators.
But like GPS and the Internet, many initially military breakthroughs will become available to
wider society, leaving us to charter new self-enhancing waters.
Some ethicists have argued that there is an urgent need to enhance human moral decision-making
– biomedically, if necessary. And Dr Roache, during the debate, was quick to suggest that most
people might approve of morally enhanced politicians.
Frosty reception
Public perception of new technology though is often cold to begin with.
But just a few decades ago treatments like IVF were seen by many as morally wrong. IVF is now
largely considered routine and socially acceptable. So might we one day accept gene therapy on
cells in early-stage embryos, which would produce heritable genetic changes for future
generations?
As technology moves inexorably forward, we are being faced with new questions about how
enhanced we want ourselves and everyone else to be.
In answering those questions, perhaps we need to recognise how enhanced we already are.
Is gene editing ethical?
By Yella Hewings-Martin PhD 20 October 2017
Will gene editing become a part of everyday medicine?
If you bring up the subject of gene editing, the debate is sure to become heated. But are we
slowly warming to the idea of using gene editing to cure genetic diseases, or even create
“designer babies?”
Gene editing holds the key to preventing or treating debilitating genetic diseases, giving hope to
millions of people around the world. Yet the same technology could unlock the path to designing
our future children, enhancing their genome by selecting desirable traits such as height, eye
color, and intelligence.
While gene editing has been used in laboratory experiments on individual cells and in animal
studies for decades, 2015 saw the first report of modified human embryos.
The number of published studies now stands at eight, with the latest research having investigated
how a certain gene affects development in the early embryo and how to fix a genetic defect that
causes a blood disorder.
The fact that gene editing is possible in human embryos has opened a Pandora’s box of ethical
issues.
So, who is in favor of gene editing? Do geneticists feel differently about this issue? And are we
likely to see the technology in mainstream medicine any time soon?
What is gene editing?
Gene editing is the modification of DNA sequences in living cells. What that means in reality is
that researchers can either add mutations or substitute genes in cells or organisms.
While this concept is not new, a real breakthrough came 5 years ago when several scientists saw
the potential of a system called CRISPR/Cas9 to edit the human genome.
CRISPR/Cas9 allows us to target specific locations in the genome with much more
precision than previous techniques. This process allows a faulty gene to be replaced with a
non-faulty copy, making this technology attractive to those looking to cure genetic diseases.
The technology is not foolproof, however. Scientists have been modifying genes for decades, but
there are always trade-offs. We have yet to develop a technique that works 100 percent and
doesn’t lead to unwanted and uncontrollable mutations in other locations in the genome.
In a laboratory experiment, these so-called off-target effects are not the end of the world. But
when it comes to gene editing in humans, this is a major stumbling block.
Here, the ethical debate around gene editing really gets off the ground.
When gene editing is used in embryos — or earlier, on the sperm or egg of carriers of
genetic mutations — it is called germline gene editing. The big issue here is that it affects
both the individual receiving the treatment and their future children.
This is a potential game-changer as it implies that we may be able to change the genetic makeup
of entire generations on a permanent basis.
Who is in favor of gene editing?
Dietram Scheufele — a professor of science communication at the University of WisconsinMadison — and colleagues surveyed 1,600 members of the general public about their attitudes
toward gene editing. The results revealed that 65 percent of respondents thought that germline
editing was acceptable for therapeutic purposes.
When it came to enhancement, only 26 percent said that it was acceptable and 51 percent said
that it was unacceptable. Interestingly, attitudes were linked to religious beliefs and the person’s
level of knowledge of gene editing.
“Among those reporting low religious guidance,” explains Prof. Scheufele, “a large
majority (75 percent) express at least some support for treatment applications, and a
substantial proportion (45 percent) do so for enhancement applications.”
He adds, “By contrast, for those reporting a relatively high level of religious guidance in their
daily lives, corresponding levels of support are markedly lower (50 percent express support for
treatment; 28 percent express support for enhancement).”
Among individuals with high levels of technical understanding of the process of gene editing, 76
percent showed at least some support of therapeutic gene editing, while 41 percent showed
support for enhancement.
But how do the views of the general public align with those of genetics professionals? Well,
Alyssa Armsby and professor of genetics Kelly E. Ormond — both of whom are from Stanford
University in California — surveyed 500 members of 10 genetics societies across the globe to
find out.
What do professionals think?
Armsby says that “there is a need for an ongoing international conversation about genome
editing, but very little data on how people trained in genetics view the technology. As the ones
who do the research and work with patients and families, they’re an important group of
stakeholders.”
The results were presented 19 October 2017 y at the American Society for Human Genetics
(ASHG) annual conference, held in Orlando, FL.
In total, 31.9 percent of respondents were in favor of research into germline editing using viable
embryos. This sentiment was more particularly pronounced in respondents under the age of 40,
those with fewer than 10 years experience, and those who classed themselves as less religious.
The survey results also revealed that 77.8 percent of respondents supported the
hypothetical use of germline gene editing for therapeutic purposes. For conditions arising
during childhood or adolescence, 73.5 percent were in favor of using the technology, while
78.2 percent said that they supported germline editing in cases where a disease would be
fatal in childhood.
On the subject of using gene editing for the purpose of enhancement, just 8.6 percent of genetics
professionals spoke out in favor.
“I was most surprised, personally,” Prof. Ormond told Medical News Today, “by the fact that
nearly [a third] of our study respondents were supportive of starting clinical research on germline
genome editing already (doing the research and attempting a pregnancy without intent to move
forward to a liveborn baby).”
This finding is in stark contrast to a policy statement that the ASHG published earlier this year,
she added.
Professional organizations urge caution
According to the statement — of which Prof. Ormand is one of the lead authors — germline
gene editing throws up a list of ethical issues that need to be considered.
The possibility of introducing unwanted mutations or DNA damage is a definite risk, and
unwanted side effects cannot be predicted or controlled at the moment.
The authors further explain:
“Eugenics refers to both the selection of positive traits (positive eugenics) and the removal of
diseases or traits viewed negatively (negative eugenics). Eugenics in either form is concerning
because it could be used to reinforce prejudice and narrow definitions of normalcy in our
societies.”
“This is particularly true when there is the potential for ‘enhancement’ that goes beyond the
treatment of medical disorders,” they add.
While prenatal testing already allows parents to choose to abort fetuses carrying certain disease
traits in many places across the globe, gene editing could create an expectation that parents
should actively select the best traits for their children.
The authors take it even further by speculating how this may affect society as a whole. “Unequal
access and cultural differences affecting uptake,” they say, “could create large differences in the
relative incidence of a given condition by region, ethnic group, or socioeconomic status.”
“Genetic disease, once a universal common denominator, could instead become an artefact of
class, geographic location, and culture,” they caution.
Therefore, the ASHG conclude that at present, it is unethical to perform germline gene
editing that would lead to the birth of an individual. But research into the safety and
efficacy of gene editing techniques, as well as into the effects of gene editing, should
continue, providing such research adheres to local laws and policies.
In Europe, this is echoed by a panel of experts who urge the formation of a European Steering
Committee to “assess the potential benefits and drawbacks of genome editing.”
They stress the need “to be proactive to prevent this technology from being hijacked by those
with extremist views and to avoid misleading public expectation with overinflated promises.”
But is the public’s perception really so different from that of researchers on the frontline of
scientific discovery?
Working together to safeguard the future
Prof. Ormond told Medical News Today that “a lot of things are similar — both groups feel that
some forms of gene editing are acceptable, and they seem to differentiate based on treating
medical conditions as compared to treatments that would be ‘enhancements,’ as well as based on
medical severity.”
“I do think there are some gaps […],” she continued, “but clearly knowledge and levels of
religiosity impact the public’s views. We need to educate both professionals and the public
so that they have a realistic sense of what gene editing can and cannot do. Measuring
attitudes is difficult to do when people don’t understand a technology.”
While advances such as CRISPR/Cas9 may have brought the possibility of gene editing one step
closer, many diseases and traits are underpinned by complex genetic interactions. Even a
seemingly simple trait such as eye color is governed by a collection of different genes.
To decide what role gene editing will play in our future, scientific and medical professionals
must work hand-in-hand with members of the general public. As the authors of the ASHG
position statement conclude:
“Ultimately, these debates and engagements will inform the frameworks to enable ethical uses of
the technology while prohibiting unethical ones.”
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades