https://www.facebook.com/share/p/dgFesTJdxXeopkeK/?mibextid=oFDknk
https://onedrive.live.com/edit?id=9B1482D54ECB3E5!8034&resid=9B1482D54ECB3E5!8034&ithint=file%2cdocx&authkey=!AFc6Dyc-B8SqvaM&wdo=2&cid=09b1482d54ecb3e5
UNNATURAL SELECTION ESSAY
Noah Williams
Olive-Harvey College
General Education Biology 114 GKMX
DR. BLANK
12 March 2024
1. What is your overall opinion of biohackers? Do you think we should be allowed to do this? If yes, explain why with evidence. If No, explain why with evidence. What are the potential genetic consequences?
My overall opinion on biohackers is that I appreciate the movement of empowerment. In terms of leveraging the tools and CRISPR-CAS9 so that it is widely accessible, however, that is where I draw the line; idealistically, those with
wealth and power already have a leg up, so for them to have sole propriety of such ability to engineer themselves to potentially even widen the inequality gap genetically would not be a good thing.
Despite my idea of a fair system, realistically, my mind would be focused on the socioeconomic ramifications of biohacking more so than the very real threat that biohacking would introduce a bigger bad: the next COVID-19 or, worse, flesh-eating bacteria.
Funny enough, I should say that it would create the next COVID-19 because, if I’m not mistaken, I’m pretty sure COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak. And the potential genetic consequence could be other mutations that we have no understanding of developing in the offspring outside our own ecosystem down the line.
2. If we had the ability to modify genes prior to birth (i.e. Designer Babies) should we? What are the moral and ethical constraints of this process? What would be the genetic consequences?
I don’t think we should because, in my humble, probably implicitly sexist opinion, I believe in Women’s right to do what she wants with her body in terms of terminating a pregnancy or even opting for IVF; the moral or ethical constraints are that the designer babies can’t speak for themselves; so to make genetic choices for them are too great a responsibility that should be reseverd soley for that individual.
To make that choice (engineering babies). Furthermore, affects their quality of life and the genetic consequences for all of that designer baby's offspring. Even understanding that engineered babies could eradicate diseases, I don't think it's the parents' choice to make or the forseen as well as unforseen consequence are too great.
3. Do you think that regulatory oversights for genetics and genetic engineering are necessary? Should a person be allowed to conduct scientific experiments on themselves without knowing any potential outcomes and/or consequences either to themselves or to environment? Why or Why Not?
Yes. I say so because when genetic engineering, one needs to consider the larger ecosystem at play. As said in the docu-series, it is one thing if one only affected themselves but when there is others that can potentially affected, nevermind offspring, although their needs and safety should be accounted for, the possible ramifications are too high of a risk.
4. Choose a character in the documentary who benefited, would not or would benefit from genetic engineering. Then, describe your opinion on how insurance, government, medicine, social constraints and so forth play a negative or positive role in their lives. What can we do better?
Jackson benefited, but even he was bailed out by, spark, the big pharma institution that asked parents however much their child’s ability of sight is what they should pay for such a cure. Insurance is expensive even with government aid, and big pharma benefits from the high cost of medication that does not cure the patient. As spoken in the docu-series there has to be a compromise where the average person who needs treatment can afford it while pharmaceutical companies make their fair share of profit.
