By mixing and matching bits of genes from one kind of organism and pasting it into another, they hoped to make new, improved plants and animals over the years they've put corn genes in rice, trout genes in cat fish, chicken genes in potatoes, even fireflies into tobacco (yielding a plant that actually glowed in the dark. But if human embryos are edited, they should not be used to establish a pregnancy gene editing of somatic cells, w hose dna is not passed on to the next generation, falls under existing regulations for gene therapy, an experimental treatment for genetic diseases that involves transplanting normal genes into cells with defective ones. Permitting human germline gene editing for any reason would likely lead to its escape from regulatory limits, to its adoption for enhancement purposes, and to the emergence of a market-based eugenics that would exacerbate already existing discrimination, inequality, and conflict we need not and should not risk these outcomes.
No because god gave us genes to show who we are and not change it the possibilities are endless on what could happen during the process of genetic engineering everybody would be the same and it could be good for society but it is not fair how the child getting tampered with does not have a say in any of this unfair, selfish, cruelty.
As scientists we want to know if it’s feasible, but then we get into the bigger questions, and it’s not a science question—it’s a society question” improving humans if germ-line engineering becomes part of medical practice, it could lead to transformative changes in human well-being, with consequences to people’s life span, identity, and economic output. Pro and con: should gene editing be performed on human embryos the most potent use of the new gene editing technique crispr is also the most controversial: tweaking the genomes of human embryos to eliminate genes that cause disease. But if reproductive uses are what we want to avoid, at least while the technology is still in its experimental stages, then regulation should focus on preventing these specific uses, not on preventing embryo genome editing altogether.
Over the years they've put corn genes in rice, trout genes in cat fish, chicken genes in potatoes, even fireflies into tobacco (yielding a plant that actually glowed in the dark) a few years ago, researchers from the us department of agriculture tried to produce leaner pork by splicing a human gene into a pig embryo. Funding agencies should not support studies with embryos suitable for implantation in the uterus, nor should journals publish such work but scientists should be permitted to conduct basic research on human germ line modification, as the international society for stem cell research and other groups have argued.
Human genes should not be modified because the long term effects are unknown could be harmful the modification of human genes should not be pursued because it is unnatural, will not provide long-term benefit to the human race and goes against the entire circle of life and how the human race works.
And for disease-causing mutations on maternal genes, the same process should occur, with the father’s healthy genetic sequence being copied, he said but the technique will not work if both parents have two defective copies then, scientists would have to determine how to coax one gene to copy a synthetic dna sequence, dr mitalipov said. However, there are concerns we should not ignore germline editing requires monitoring of future generations of the embryo’s offspring, which raises a host of practical, legal and regulatory issues currently unaddressed. In other cells in the body, the editing process is carried out by genes that copy a dna template introduced by scientists in these embryos, the sperm cell’s mutant gene ignored that template and instead copied the healthy dna sequence from the egg cell. Some thinkers have concluded that we should not pass up the chance to make improvements to our species “the human genome is not perfect,” says john harris, a bioethicist at manchester university, in the uk.