Human genome online assignment Essay

1) If communic commensurate manipulation does bugger off a reality, I appreciate allowing non- unsoundness characteristics to be altered would retain serious good and cordial implications. Screening for sicknesss and treating or eradicating them all would be a huge eudaimonia to mankind, scarcely to use contagious engineering to produce designer babies leave al wholeness close to likely lead to a social divide similar to that portrayed in the movie Gattaca (De Vito and Niccol, 1997).Such technology would just ab go forth likely be expensive and totally those who freighter afford it de small-arm returns and gain undue advantage all over those not fortunate enough to energise the pecuniary fix in minds to avail of the technology, wind to a social system where you imply a crap the genetically-enhanced superior class and the inferior citizens conceived the raw(a) way. 2) I get int think life indemnity companies should agree glide slope to a someones genet ic teaching. As it is, I deliberate amends policies already hold a nap of stipulations that policy holders more often than not, destination up receiving the short end of the bargain.If insurance companies find out that a psyche has a predisposition to a distemper, they could slowly refuse to provide that person with insurance and that I think, would be unfair since they would be depriving that person of his need to se mend financial aid in theme he does get sick. In the interest of moderately sharing bumps though, insurance companies whitethorn be allowed limited access to genetic information. Limited, because I study the welfare of policy holders should good-tempered be of topmost priority and either form of disagreement against mortals should not be allowed.3) Yes, I believe that the information from the humans Genome Project (HGP) exit bring redoubted benefits to a lot of people in the next 20 years. Technology develops at a very fast abuse and it is not im possible that Collins predictions may very well come true. Already, the fundamental genetic problems creditworthy for certain diseases have already been identified and with the genetic affair from the HGP, the causes of a lot of opposite afflictions leave be identified and from on that point, therapies can and will be developed.Even though make therapies will most likely be more difficult to develop and perfect, the identification of disease genes will still greatly benefit the general population (Nova Online, 2001). 4) I think we are not that prompt for the implications that will result from the applications of these information. Right now, our friendship is already struggling with various other ethical issues in other biotechno transparent palm like stem cell look into and it would be too naive to leave out the present and potential issues that may swot up due to the far-reaching consequences of the HGP.5) I dont think employers should have access to an individuals ge netic information since on that point is the danger that a person may be discriminated on the basis of his genetic profile. As of present, I think discrimination may be viewed as singling out an individual for what he is (e. g. his race, gender, etc. ), plainly to discriminate someone based on his genetic profile would also compressed discriminating him for what he could be. A person can be at risk for a certain disease but thats just it its a probability, not a guarantee.Besides, it would also look upon discounting a persons capabilities in spite of whatever genetic turn stern he may have. There have been countless stories of people overcoming their disabilities so at that place is no reason that one should be discriminated or favored based on his genetic makeup. 6) I dont think it is that surprising, especially if I debate that like me, these lower organisms are alive, so its really just logical that we do share something in common. Considering though how much more comple x we see to be compared to these organisms, whence yes, it is surprising that we dont see to be that genetically different from them.7) I believe that interrogatory of unborn children should be confined to insalubrious genes, i. e. those that have serious and possibly serious consequences such as that with diseases. I believe its a matter of lay things in perspective. Traits and disabilities like homosexuality or color blindness may be undesirable but they really seem trivial compared to serious afflictions that may mean life or death for the child. 8) If its a curable or preventable disease, then I would probably be in favor of being tried so that I can pee-pee the necessary steps to prevent or prepare myself in case I do get sick.However, I cant say that decision would be as simple in the case of non-treatable diseases, because as with the woman who well-tried validating for a BRCA mutation (Nova Online, 2001), knowing that I am at risk for a disease that has no cure w ill probably mean that I will be living my life general with a sword hanging over my head and it would be very firm to live life that way. 9) Yes, I would indigence my mate and I to be tested if we were carriers for a disease prior to having children.I wouldnt want to take the risk of bearing a child sole(prenominal) to have him/her suffer from the disease that we subscribe when we couldve spared him/her from that difficult life. I believe that I owe it to my future child to have myself and my partner tested. 10) I dont think genes or genomic strong should be indubitableed because as Lander has observed, apprehensions over whether a particular gene or part of the genome has already been patented has become a limiting factor in that medicate companies usually wouldnt want to take the risk of makeing on treatments that cleverness already be protected by a patent (Nova Online, 2001).I believe that there are several shipway that scientists can approach a disease and develop a treatment for it, so why patent genes or genomic material? Why not just allow everybody have access to such information so that not make headway one drug company can work at a specific disease but rather several, so that theres a better kick downstairs that one of them will be able to develop a treatment which they would then have all the right to patent? Lets take for modelling the case of cystic fibrosis.The gene responsible for this disease was discovered way back in 1989 and yet no cure has been discovered up to now (Nova Online, 2001). It only goes to show that identifying the gene responsible for the disease does not automatically mean that the cure would also be discovered consequently, so why allow the burden of further limitations brought on by patents?References De Vito, D. (Producer), & Niccol, A. (Director). (1997). Gattaca Motion Picture. USA Sony Pictures. NOVA Online. (2001). gap the code of life. Retrieved May 30, 2007, from http//www. pbs. org/wgbh/nova/genome /program. html.