Please keep in mind that this paper must be at least three pages long, not including the Works Cited page. You may use a few additional sources on Genetic Modifications on babies, but keep your outside sources limited. Try to rely on the two articles that I have posted.

CBS/AP / February 3, 2015, 10:36 AM

Is it OK to make babies from 3 parents’ DNA?

Britain could soon become the first country to allow a controversial technique to create babies from the DNA of three people. Lawmakers in Parliament’s House of Commons voted Tuesday to permit embryos to be genetically modified — a move that could prevent children from inheriting potentially fatal diseases. The bill must next be approved by the House of Lords before becoming law.

The in-vitro fertilization technique involves altering a human egg or embryo before transferring it into the mother. Until now, British law had forbidden any such modification. So-called “three-parent IVF” is not approved in the United States, although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is investigating its safety.

The British government published rules in December on how the techniques should be used. The U.K.’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Sally Davies, said they should be legalized “to give women who carry severe mitochondrial disease the opportunity to have children without passing on devastating genetic disorders.”

Defects in the mitochondria can result in diseases including muscular dystrophy, heart, kidney and liver failure and severe muscle weakness.

Critics, however, say the techniques cross a fundamental scientific boundary, since the changes made to the embryos will be passed on to future generations. They have also warned the techniques could lead to the creation of “designer babies.”

“(This is) about protecting children from the severe health risks of these unnecessary techniques and protecting everyone from the eugenic designer-baby future that will follow from this,” said David King, director of the secular watchdog group Human Genetics Alert.

The techniques would likely only be used in about a dozen British women every year who have faulty mitochondria, the energy-producing structures outside a cell’s nucleus. To fix that, scientists remove the nucleus DNA from the egg of a prospective mother and insert it into a donor egg from which the nucleus DNA has been removed. This can be done either before or after fertilization.

The resulting embryo would end up with the nucleus DNA from its parents but the mitochondrial DNA from the donor. Scientists say the DNA from the donor egg amounts to a fraction of a percent of the resulting embryo’s genes.

The debate leading up to Tuesday’s vote grew heated, reports CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips in London. “It would be hard to imagine a more controversial or passionate debate. There was a lot of loaded language in this … ‘designer babies,’ ‘playing God,’ ‘three-parent babies,'” Phillips said.

“The church has argued, other people have taken moral and ethical positions that this is unnatural, that it’s wrong on ethical grounds, on moral grounds, on religious grounds — even on medical grounds, because the trials aren’t quite as extensive as some people would like to have seen them.” However, he noted that the measure had safeguards built in to limit the practice to cases of preventing genetic disorders, and the final vote was strongly in favor of approval.

Dr. Gillian Lockwood, a reproductive ethicist, told the BBC it’s a bit misleading to refer to the process as three-parent IVF: “In fact it is 2.001-parent IVF,” she said. “Less than a tenth of one percent of the genome is actually going to be affected. It is not part of what makes us genetically who we are.”

She also disputed claims that the technique could lead to designer babies. “It doesn’t affect height, eye colour, intelligence, musicality. It simply allows the batteries to work properly,” she said.

In the U.S. last year, the FDA held a meeting to discuss the techniques and scientists warned it could take decades to determine if they are safe. Experts say the techniques are likely being used elsewhere, such as in China and Japan, but are mostly unregulated.

Rachel Kean, whose aunt suffered from mitochondrial disease and had several miscarriages and stillbirths, said she hoped British politicians would approve the techniques. Kean, an activist for the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, said her mother is also a carrier of mitochondrial disease and that she herself would like the option one day of having children who won’t be affected.

“Knowing that you could bring a child into this world for a short, painful life of suffering is not something I would want to do,” she said.

Lisa Jardine, who chaired a review into the techniques conducted by Britain’s fertility regulator, said each case will be under close scrutiny and that doctors will track children born using this technique as well as their future offspring. She acknowledged there was still uncertainty about the safety of the novel techniques.

“Every medical procedure ultimately carries a small risk,” she said, pointing out that the first baby created using in-vitro fertilization would never have been born if scientists hadn’t risked experimenting with unproven methods.

Kean said she understood the opposition to the new technology.

“It’s everybody’s prerogative to object due to their own personal beliefs,” she said. “But to me the most ethical option is stopping these devastating diseases from causing suffering in the future.”

Oxford Professor Says Genetically Altering Unborn Babies Personalities A Moral Obligation

By WakingTimes January 22, 2013

Aaron Jackson, Guest Writer

Waking Times

Genetically screening our offspring to make them better people is just “responsible parenting”, claims an eminent Oxford academic, The Telegraph reports

.

Professor Julian Savulescu, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, said that creating so-called designer babies could be considered a “moral obligation” as it makes them grow up into “ethically better children”, this based on a few genetic links to ‘personality disorders’.

He said that we should actively give parents the choice to screen out personality flaws in their children as it meant they were then less likely to “harm themselves and others”.

Studies show that the child’s upbringing, including parenthood and schooling methods are the root causes of many ‘personality flaws’. Other studies give strong evidence that nutrition, meditation and exercise greatly influence behavioural patterns and emotional well-being. This entire theory is also blind to the side effects of many medicines, vaccines, food additives and (some) GMO foods that have been proven to affect psychological behaviour, and this isn’t even touching on the possible beneficial use of marijuana and other substances for those with undesired personality traits.

“Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting?” wrote Prof Savulescu, the Uehiro Professor in practical ethics. Clearly without thinking of the potentially worse side effects of this theoretical treatment.

Professor Savulescu goes on to say that science is increasingly discovering that genes have a significant influence on personality — with certain genetic markers in embryo suggesting future characteristics.

In the end, he said, “rational design” would help lead to a better, more intelligent and less violent society in the future. Definitely something westernised nations will be pushing for – obedience.

Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children. They are, after all, less likely to harm themselves and others.

.

He said that “we already routinely screen embryos and fetuses for conditions such as cystic fibrosis and Down’s syndrome and couples can test embryos for inherited bowel and breast cancer genes. Rational design is just a natural extension of this.” ”Natural extension” he said.

He said that unlike the eugenics movements, which fell out of favour when it was adopted by the Nazis, the system would be voluntary and allow parents to choose the characteristics of their children.

Many human genes have also been patented which raises huge ethical questions, as explained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU):

A 2005 study found that 4,382 of the 23,688 human genes in the National Center for Biotechnology Information’s gene database are explicitly claimed as intellectual property. This means that nearly 20% of human genes are patented.

.

Prof Savulescu:

Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now. Rather than fearing genetics, we should embrace it. We can do better than chance.

.

This type of genetic modification, called cytoplasmic transfer already results in a slightly higher chance of death and some have already been diagnosed with autism.

It seems that while we do not have freedom to smoke a plant or to gain access to effective cancer treating drugs such as DCA due to insufficient testing, the modification of the human species is taken lightly. Who knows what purposeful and accidental modifications will come from this.

ENC 1101

Assignment: 2

Topic Selection: Genetics

1. Use the two articles provided

a. Is it OK to make babies from 3 parents’ DNA?

b. Oxford Professor Says Genetically Altering Unborn Babies Personalities A Moral Obligation

2. Please include two sources from the library or the library databases

Research/Source Evaluation Paper:

A research paper is the culmination and final product of an involved process of research, critical thinking, source evaluation, organization, and composition. Source Evaluation is needed to scrutinize and analyze the given sources on their substance and academic validity.

Assignment:

Students will submit an outline and compose a three-page (research/evaluation) paper.

Instructions:

Make sure that your paper has:

•
A clear, concise, and defined thesis statement that occurs in the first portion of the paper.

•
Clear and logical transitions between the introduction, body, and conclusion.

•
Body paragraphs that include evidential support.

•
Evidential support (whether factual, logical, statistical, or anecdotal).

•
A conclusion that does not simply restate the thesis but readdresses it in light of the evidence provided.

Due Date:

Your three-page paper is due March 15. When typing your paper, please be sure to double-space and to use the standard 12-point font in either Times New Roman or Calibri. Follow MLA research guidelines. Be sure to also include a Works Cited.