But as the depression is partly the result of a reasoning process, the depression could have been avoided by giving the person reasons to reject the adoption of the belief that her life was going very badly. After all, many people refuse to believe that their life is going very badly even when they have good evidence for the truth of this belief and probably conscious or unconscious knowledge about the costs attached to being depressed has a role in this.
This may be the case, even though, at the moment, we have no evidence for it. For example, they could choose genes that make their children severely mentally handicapped. Such parents would intentionally make their children disabled. Arguably, their action would constitute an abuse and would have to be punished accordingly. But the remote possibility of such misuses does not by itself provide support for general restrictions on the reproductive use of genetic engineering and cloning.
This is shown by the fact that parents can of course interfere with the cognitive and emotional development of their children through perverse and abusive environmental interventions, interventions that can result in their children becoming defective moral agents. This can happen, for example, in the case of parents who interfere with the development of their children's brain by giving them powerful addictive drugs, by beating them violently or by keeping them as recluses for many years.
We do not normally take the relatively rare occurrences of abuses of this sort as a reason to ban parents in general from choosing how to bring up their children. Similarly, we should not take the remote possibility that some parents may misuse cloning and genetic engineering in the ways described as a reason to ban the reproductive use of these technologies.
Buchanan et al 9 argue that reproductive genetic engineering can, in some circumstances, infringe a child's right to an open future and that this fact should seriously be taken into account when deciding whether to ban this reproductive technology.
What is the right to an open future? It is not easy to extract a single definition from Feinberg's original article. Buchanan et al suggest that the best way to make sense of Feinberg's notion is as follows:. The idea is that parents have a responsibility to help their children during their growth to adulthood to develop capacities for practical judgement and autonomous choice, and to develop as well at least a reasonable range of the skills and capacities necessary to provide them the choice of a reasonable array of different life plans available to members of their society.
Feinberg's original article is about parents' environmental rather than genetic choices. They argued that schooling beyond age 14 is not necessary for the Amish way of life and interferes with Amish children acquiring the skills and motivation needed to become an integrated member of the Amish community. The Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted their request. The child would not develop the skills necessary to pursue life projects different from those that can be pursued as a member of the Amish community.
According to Buchanan et al , 9 the principle that parents should not be allowed to make choices resulting in their children not having a reasonable array of life plans from which to choose should be applied to both environmental and genetic choices. Thus, a genetic intervention that makes a child particularly fit to pursue a career as, say, a pianist but unfit to pursue any other available career, would be illegitimate, especially in contemporary Western societies where a relatively large range of choices is usually available to most people.
Genetic interventions that make children fit for only a restricted range of ways of life violate the right to an open future and should thereby be banned. The ability to choose our own life plan is arguably one of the essential conditions of the good life.
What does this ability require? People must have cognitive and emotional skills that make them able to a compare consciously or unconsciously different life plans, b select one among those life plans they are able to consider, c transform this choice into the intention to behave in accordance with the chosen plan and d transform this intention into behaviour that actually conforms to the chosen option.
Moreover, people must have skills that allow them to pursue different life plans with some definite chance of success, and they must be in a social context where these different life plans can actually be pursued. If people have skills that make them fit for one and only one particular and very specific life plan, they cannot be said to actually be able to choose their own life plan. Similarly, if people live in a despotic society where they are allowed to pursue only one kind of career, they are obviously not free to choose their life plan.
Parents inevitably exert an important influence on the array of life plans available to their children. In many cases, this influence results in children having a larger array of life plans from which to choose than they would otherwise have had. In other cases, the influence results in children having a smaller array of life plans from which to choose than they would otherwise have had.
Making someone fit for a particular life plan often but not always results in making the same person less fit for other life plans. Many parents make environmental choices aimed at increasing their children's chances of succeeding in the pursuit of more or less specific life plans. By doing so, they often make their children less likely to succeed in the pursuit of other alternative life plans and, in this sense, they may reduce the range of life plans available to their children.
Yet this sort of parental behaviour is in most cases considered legitimate, and some see it as an inevitable ingredient of being a good parent. If the practice is legitimate in the case of most parental environmental choices, why should it not be legitimate in the case of most parental genetic choices? Parents are currently allowed to adopt relatively severe educational methods aimed at, for example, transforming their children into successful tennis players or into successful law school graduates.
Given this, why should they not be allowed to use genetic methods to achieve similar results?. The discussion about the legitimacy of the Amish parents' request suggests that there is a moral limit to the extent to which parents can be allowed to reduce the array of life plans available to their children. If some environmental choices eg, not sending a child to school reduce the range of life plans available to a child below a certain threshold, then those choices can be said to violate the child's autonomy and are thereby illegitimate.
Exactly the same applies to genetic choices. What is the threshold that parental choices—be they genetic or environmental—should never trespass? This is a difficult question and there is no room here for dealing with it properly. The correct answer to this question depends on many different factors. Buchanan et al , 9 for example, argue that the answer depends, among other things, on what the correct theory of justice is.
Despite the question being a difficult one, we can examine current practice for some suggestions about how to think about this issue. For example, we may notice that there exist relatively large disparities in the range of life plans available to different members of society. Some of these disparities are due to unjust social arrangements, but arguably some of them are not. Rich people usually have more opportunities than poor people, and at least some of these differences in opportunity are usually not considered to be the result of unjust social arrangements.
Yet it seems wrong to claim that, except perhaps in cases of extreme poverty, poor members of society violate their children's right to an open future when they decide to give birth to a child and not to give up their child for adoption to rich members of society. Another consideration is that cloning and genetic engineering would probably not be used to reduce the array of life plans available to a child below the morally permissible threshold.
Let us consider cloning first. In so far as the life plans available to children depend on their physical and mental abilities rather than on factors extrinsic to the child, eg, the wealth of the parents or the structure of society and in so far as such physical and mental abilities depend on the children's genome rather than on their developmental environment , the array of life plans available to a cloned child is similar to the array of life plans available to the person from whom the child's genome is derived.
Thus, unless the parents select for their child the genome of someone who, because of his or her genes, did not have a decent minimum number of different life plans from which to choose, the parental decision to conceive a child by cloning cannot in general interfere with the child's chances to have a reasonable array of life plans at his or her disposal.
In fact, if the parents decide to create a child by cloning someone who had many options and opportunities in life, their choice will in general positively contribute to the range of life plans available to the child. What about genetic engineering? Such genetic choices would in general enlarge rather than reduce the array of life plans available to the future child.
But some parents may want to use genetic engineering to increase the chances of their child becoming fit for a very specific life plan. In many cases, such genetic choices would reduce the range of life plans available to a child to the same extent as currently accepted environmental choices such as the decision to make a child play a lot of tennis. In other cases, the genetic choices would reduce the range to the same extent as environmental choices that are currently considered illegitimate such as the decision not to send a child to school at all.
In so far as we can make sure that cases of the second kind are relatively rare, the possible occurrence of these cases cannot be used as a reason to ban the reproductive use of genetic engineering. Parents can in principle use cloning and genetic engineering to make their children unable to choose their life plan. They could choose for their children genes that interfere with the normal development of the cognitive and emotional abilities required to compare and select life plans or they could choose for their children genes that are likely to make them fit only for a very specific life plan.
It is for these reasons that, as in the case of parental environmental choices, parental genetic choices should be regulated and constrained. But they should be regulated and constrained in ways that are similar to the way in which environmental choices are regulated. Some commentators think that the array of life plans available to people depends not only on their skills and sociophysical context but also on the way with conceive of themselves and of the options available to them.
Such expectations would exert a powerful psychological pressure on the cloned person and would heavily restrict the array of life plans effectively available to him or her. In their view, genetically engineered people who know that their parents chose for them genes designed to bring about, say, a preference for a particular kind of career would feel heavily constrained in the kind of choices they can make, and parental expectations would amplify this feeling. My reply in this case is similar to my reply to Habermas.
We could also start teaching people from an early age that the fact that two people have the same genes does not imply that they are destined to live similar lives. Similar considerations apply, mutatis mutandis, to the case of genetically engineered people. What about parental expectations? No good evidence supports this claim either.
Parental expectations often have an important and positive role in child development, even though they can occasionally harm a child and unjustly constrain his or her future freedom of choice. It should also be noticed that we currently accept very strong and pressing parental expectations as legitimate.
Consider the example of the firstborn royal child, who has to cope not only with the expectations of the parents but also with the expectations of a whole nation and beyond: everybody expects the child to take the throne when the right moment comes. This suggests that we do not usually see such expectations as infringing on the royal child's right to an open future. Some authors have argued that the human use of reproductive cloning and genetic engineering should be prohibited because these biotechnologies undermine the autonomy of the resulting child.
In this paper, I have considered two versions of this objection. I have argued that there is no evidence that people conceived through cloning and genetic engineering would inevitably or even in general be unable to assume responsibility for their actions.
And I have argued that there is no evidence that cloning and genetic engineering would inevitably or even in general rob the child of the possibility to choose from a sufficiently large array of life plans. But there seem to be no asymmetry between parental genetic choices and parental environmental choices with respect to the ways, the circumstances and, arguably, the frequency with which these choices would be used to perpetrate abuse.
Thus, no such asymmetry can be appealed to in arguing that the restrictions on parental genetic choices and on the biotechnologies that make such choices possible should be much more severe than current restrictions on parental environmental choices. From a legislative viewpoint, genetic choices and environmental choices should be treated in similar ways. Many issues remain unresolved.
One issue concerns the best ways to avoid parents from using cloning and genetic engineering to perpetrate abuse. We also need to establish how to distinguish in a principled way between genetic interventions that constitute abuse and genetic interventions that do not. These issues are important, but they should be seen as special cases of general questions about the permissibility of producing certain kinds of effects on children, whether through genetic interventions or through environmental interventions.
The fact that a given intervention affects a child's genome rather than his or her environment does not make that intervention more likely to constitute abuse. And the fact that an abuse has been perpetrated by a choice of genes does not make the abuse worse or its effects more irreversible than if it had been perpetrated through an intervention on the child's developmental environment.
Parents can affect the genetic endowment of their future children simply by choosing a particular reproductive partner rather than another. But obviously cloning and genetic engineering provide a much more direct and precise tool for affecting the genetic endowment of our children. Competing interests: None. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Journal List J Med Ethics v. J Med Ethics. M Mameli. Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Received Mar 14; Accepted Mar This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Abstract Some authors have argued that the human use of reproductive cloning and genetic engineering should be prohibited because these biotechnologies would undermine the autonomy of the resulting child. Buchanan et al suggest that the best way to make sense of Feinberg's notion is as follows: The idea is that parents have a responsibility to help their children during their growth to adulthood to develop capacities for practical judgement and autonomous choice, and to develop as well at least a reasonable range of the skills and capacities necessary to provide them the choice of a reasonable array of different life plans available to members of their society.
Given this, why should they not be allowed to use genetic methods to achieve similar results? Conclusions Some authors have argued that the human use of reproductive cloning and genetic engineering should be prohibited because these biotechnologies undermine the autonomy of the resulting child. References 1. Harris J. Clones, genes and immortality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, On cloning.
London: Routledge, Agar N. Liberal eugenics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, Dworkin R. Sovereign virtue. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, O'Neill O. This rise in animal use challenges the Three Rs principle of Reduction It has been reasoned that once created, the use of genetically engineered animals will reduce the total number of animals used in any given experiment by providing novel and more accurate animal models, especially in applications such as toxicity testing However, the greater variety of available applications, and the large numbers of animals required for the creation and maintenance of new genetically engineered strains indicate that there is still progress to be made in implementation of the Three Rs principle of Reduction in relation to the creation and use of genetically engineered animals Little data has been collected on the net welfare impacts to genetically engineered animals or to those animals required for their creation, and genetic engineering techniques have been described as both unpredictable and inefficient The latter is due, in part, to the limitations in controlling the integration site of foreign DNA, which is inherent in some genetic engineering techniques such as pro-nuclear microinjection.
In such cases, scientists may generate several independent lines of genetically engineered animals that differ only in the integration site 26 , thereby further increasing the numbers of animals involved. This conflicts with efforts to adhere to the principles of the Three Rs, specifically Reduction. With other, more refined techniques that allow greater control of DNA integration for example, gene targeting , unexpected outcomes are attributed to the unpredictable interaction of the introduced DNA with host genes.
These interactions also vary with the genetic background of the animal, as has frequently been observed in genetically engineered mice For example, many of the early transgenic livestock studies produced animals with a range of unexpected side effects including lameness, susceptibility to stress, and reduced fertility 9. A significant limitation of current cloning technology is the prospect that cloned offspring may suffer some degree of abnormality.
Studies have revealed that cloned mammals may suffer from developmental abnormalities, including extended gestation; large birth weight; inadequate placental formation; and histological effects in organs and tissues for example, kidneys, brain, cardiovascular system, and muscle. One annotated review highlights 11 different original research articles that documented the production of cloned animals with abnormalities occurring in the developing embryo, and suffering for the newborn animal and the surrogate mother Genetically engineered animals, even those with the same gene manipulation, can exhibit a variety of phenotypes; some causing no welfare issues, and some causing negative welfare impacts.
It is often difficult to predict the effects a particular genetic modification can have on an individual animal, so genetically engineered animals must be monitored closely to mitigate any unanticipated welfare concerns as they arise. For newly created genetically engineered animals, the level of monitoring needs to be greater than that for regular animals due to the lack of predictability.
Once a genetically engineered animal line is established and the welfare concerns are known, it may be possible to reduce the levels of monitoring if the animals are not exhibiting a phenotype that has negative welfare impacts. To aid this monitoring process, some authors have called for the implementation of a genetically engineered animal passport that accompanies an individual animal and alerts animal care staff to the particular welfare needs of that animal This passport document is also important if the intention is to breed from the genetically engineered animal in question, so the appropriate care and husbandry can be in place for the offspring.
With progress in genetic engineering techniques, new methods 30 , 31 may substantially reduce the unpredictability of the location of gene insertion. As a result, genetic engineering procedures may become less of a welfare concern over time. Questions regarding whether it is acceptable to make new transgenic animals go beyond consideration of the Three Rs, animal health, and animal welfare, and prompt the discussion of concepts such as intrinsic value, integrity, and naturalness Views such as those put forward by Rollin have been argued against on the grounds that health and welfare or animal interests may not be the only things to consider when establishing ethical limits.
It is often on these grounds that people will argue that genetic engineering of animals is morally wrong. An alternative view put forward by Schicktanz 36 argues that it is the human-animal relationship that may be damaged by genetic engineering due to the increasingly imbalanced distribution of power between humans and animals.
For some, the genetic engineering of animals may not put their moral principles at risk. For example, this could perhaps be because genetic engineering is seen as a logical continuation of selective breeding, a practice that humans have been carrying out for years; or because human life is deemed more important than animal life. So if genetic engineering creates animals that help us to develop new human medicine then, ethically speaking, we may actually have a moral obligation to create and use them; or because of an expectation that genetic engineering of animals can help reduce experimental animal numbers, thus implementing the accepted Three Rs framework.
For others, the genetic engineering of animals may put their moral principles at risk. For example costs may always be seen to outweigh benefits because the ultimate cost is the violation of species integrity and disregard for the inherent value of animals.
Some may view telos as something that cannot or should not be altered, and therefore altering the telos of an animal would be morally wrong. Some may see genetic engineering as exaggerating the imbalance of power between humans and animals, whilst others may fear that the release of genetically engineered animals will upset the natural balance of the ecosystem. In addition, there may be those who feel strongly opposed to certain applications of genetic engineering, but more accepting of others.
For example, recent evidence suggests that people may be more accepting of biomedical applications than those relating to food production Such underlying complexity of views regarding genetic engineering makes the setting of ethical limits difficult to achieve, or indeed, even discuss. However, progress needs to be made on this important issue, especially for those genetically engineered species that are intended for life outside the research laboratory, where there may be less careful oversight of animal welfare.
Consequently, limits to genetic engineering need to be established using the full breadth of public and expert opinion. This highlights the importance for veterinarians, as animal health experts, to be involved in the discussion.
Preserving intellectual property can breed a culture of confidentiality within the scientific community, which in turn limits data and animal sharing. Such limits to data and animal sharing may create situations in which there is unnecessary duplication of genetically engineered animal lines, thereby challenging the principle of Reduction. Indeed, this was a concern that was identified in a recent workshop on the creation and use of genetically engineered animals in science It should be noted that no matter what the application of genetically engineered animals, there are restrictions on the methods of their disposal once they have been euthanized.
The reason for this is to restrict the entry of genetically engineered animal carcasses into the natural ecosystem until the long-term effects and risks are better understood. As genetically engineered animals begin to enter the commercial realm, it will become increasingly important for veterinarians to inform themselves about any special care and management required by these animals. As animal health professionals, veterinarians can also make important contributions to policy discussions related to the oversight of genetic engineering as it is applied to animals, and to regulatory proceedings for the commercial use of genetically engineered animals.
It is likely that public acceptance of genetically engineered animal products will be an important step in determining when and what types of genetically engineered animals will appear on the commercial market, especially those animals used for food production. Veterinarians may also be called on to inform the public about genetic engineering techniques and any potential impacts to animal welfare and food safety.
Consequently, for the discussion regarding genetically engineered animals to progress effectively, veterinarians need to be aware of the current context in which genetically engineered animals are created and used, and to be aware of the manner in which genetic engineering technology and the animals derived from it may be used in the future. Genetic engineering techniques can be applied to a range of animal species, and although many genetically engineered animals are still in the research phase, there are a variety of intended applications for their use.
Consequently, even if animal welfare can be satisfactorily safeguarded, intrinsic ethical concerns about the genetic engineering of animals may be cause enough to restrict certain types of genetically engineered animals from reaching their intended commercial application.
Given the complexity of views regarding genetic engineering, it is valuable to involve all stakeholders in discussions about the applications of this technology. Schuppli for her insight on how the issues discussed may affect veterinarians.
Use of this article is limited to a single copy for personal study. Anyone interested in obtaining reprints should contact the CVMA office gro. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Journal List Can Vet J v. Can Vet J. Elisabeth H. Ormandy , Julie Dale , and Gilly Griffin. Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Address all correspondence to Dr. Griffin; e-mail: ac. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Current context of genetically engineered animals Genetic engineering technology has numerous applications involving companion, wild, and farm animals, and animal models used in scientific research. Wild animals The primary application of genetic engineering to wild species involves cloning. Research animals Biomedical applications of genetically engineered animals are numerous, and include understanding of gene function, modeling of human disease to either understand disease mechanisms or to aid drug development, and xenotransplantation.
Ethical issues of genetic engineering Ethical issues, including concerns for animal welfare, can arise at all stages in the generation and life span of an individual genetically engineered animal. Concerns for animal welfare Invasiveness of procedures The generation of a new genetically engineered line of animals often involves the sacrifice of some animals and surgical procedures for example, vasectomy, surgical embryo transfer on others.
Unanticipated welfare concerns Little data has been collected on the net welfare impacts to genetically engineered animals or to those animals required for their creation, and genetic engineering techniques have been described as both unpredictable and inefficient Implications for veterinarians As genetically engineered animals begin to enter the commercial realm, it will become increasingly important for veterinarians to inform themselves about any special care and management required by these animals.
Footnotes Use of this article is limited to a single copy for personal study. References 1. Terrestrial Animal Health Code; p. The welfare implications of animal breeding and breeding technologies in commercial agriculture. Livestock Sci. Cloning Fact Sheet Available from www. Somatic cell nuclear transfer. West C. Economic and ethics in the genetic engineering of animals. Harvard J Law Technol.
Cell biology: A cat cloned by nuclear transplantation. Dogs cloned from adult somatic cells. Wildlife conservation and reproductive cloning. Laible G. Enhancing livestock through genetic engineering — Recent advances and future prospects. Comp Immunol Microb. Europeans and Biotechnology in Eurobarometer FDA Report August 25, Making recombinant proteins in animals — different systems, different applications. Trends Biotechnol.
Wells DJ. Genetically modified animals and pharmacological research. Comparative and Veterinary Pharmacology. Berlin: Springer; Utilization of genetically altered animals in the pharmaceutical industry. Toxicol Pathol. Logan JS, Sharma A.
Potential use of genetically modified pigs as organ donors for transplantation into humans. Clin Exp Pharmacol P. Einsiedel EF, Ross H.
Cloning and Genetic Engineering Research Paper Hence, proponents believe it is the best method to curb and eliminate human suffering Russell, In addition, cloning and genetic engineering has led to rejuvenation in human life.
Advocates of cloning assert that this type of technology help in getting rid of all physical body issues that come up with age. For example, it eliminates wriggles among the old people leading to emotional and psychological. Moreover, humans who have burns and injuries in their body are the greatest beneficiaries of cloning. They have a chance of receiving skin tissues that eliminate the burns. In some cases, human beings are infertile and cannot have children.
Cloning is one of the solutions to most infertile couples Nicholl, Couples undergo emotional and physical pain when undergoing infertility treatment; cloning eliminates these problems, putting them in a situation to have children that are genetically theirs. Cloning is also helpful in the genetic research, this is because the technology behind cloning enables researchers to understand the effects of genes that humans have, and composition of genes.
In a wider perspective, cloning helps in eliminating genetic diseases. Cloning and Genetic Engineering Research Paper On the other hand, scholars and scientists assert that cloning comes with some negative impacts to humans. In fact, to many, cloning interferes with the natural process of creating children.
The modification that takes place in humans may lead to the creation of smarter humans , which become problematic to those who are not products of cloning. Cloning does not give room to natural gene diversity to take place; cloning is only there to produce identical genes, meaning it hinders the process of gene replication, thus impeding diversity of genes.
Hence, the beauty that lies on diversity and ability to adapt is eliminated. Family structure is important to the life of humans but cloning totally destabilizes the structure of family. Cloning is there to invite malpractices among medical practitioners and in society Stanley, Hence, based on human ethic cloning takes away the ethical issues that are crucial to human, it devalues humans and the entirely undermines the importance of human existence.
Genetic engineering influences the life of humans negatively. The use of genetically modified food is believed to react with the human body in negative ways. In fact, the side effects are unknown, but it has been demonstrated has a factor that increases the risk to human health by causing cancer and other human diseases.
Furthermore, genetic engineering corrupts the supply of food in the globe Russell, Many companies have utilized the production of food using technology, whereby they focus on profits at the expense of human health. Genetic engineering will create organisms that human beings will not have defense against, leading to evolution chaos. Conclusively, technology in the globe is a double-edged-sword, which needs to be taken care of responsibly. Cloning and Genetic Engineering Research Paper Cloning and genetic engineering are outcomes of technology; hence, it has both positive and negative impacts on the issues of humans.
Proponents in support of cloning and genetic engineering assert that it is one method that holds the potential to eradicate and solve humankind problems. On a positive note, genetic engineering and cloning improve human circumstances by reducing food shortage, treating diseases, reducing costs, solving infertility problems, curbs human suffering, increases lifespan, as well as eliminating physical damages such as burns and wrinkles.
These changes cause by cloning and genetic engineering has changed human live positively. Cloning and Genetic Engineering Research Paper Arguably, technology has changed various aspects of human activities. Cloning and Genetic Engineering Research Paper Genetic engineering has tremendous use in production of food. The traditional methods of genetic improvement were natural through the cross breeding plants and animals with different traits so that new traits are created within the offspring Knoepffler Recombinant DNA rDNA in genetic engineering is a result of genes combination from more than one origin to come up with a recombinant organism which is described as a genetically modified living organism Anderson The history of genetic engineering dates back to when bacteria were genetically engineered through the introduction of rDNA into the bacteria by scientists.
For example, later in mice were also genetically modified. This illustrated the research growth in genetic engineering. This technology was aimed at producing organisms with biological advantages through artificial combination of various genes Cohen and Mary The offsprings which were created by genetic modification had advantages such as production of drugs and vital enzymes which were extracted and sold to manufacturing industries. For example the production of insulin producing bacteria in by scientists was highly commercialized.
The field of genetic modification of organisms has grown significantly with time. As a result, genetically modified organisms GMO such as food have been introduced in the market since Hammond The change in the genetic makeup of an organism in genetic engineering uses a set of technologies which involve manipulation of genes into chemicals considered biologically important.
Genes determine the traits of an organism by acting as chemical blueprints specific for that organism hence genetic engineering leads to the combination of a number of traits which cannot be produced by natural means Greene This technology is different from the traditional natural animal and plant breeding because it involves introduction of new genes into unspecified points within the host genome.
Moreover, genetic engineering is different from the natural methods of sexual production because there are no restrictions in the genetic combinations Greene For example, in natural breeding, cows are bred through breeding with other cows but genetic engineering may introduce desirable genes from anywhere in nature such as from sea urchins.
This shows that genetic engineering has fewer limitations hence advantageous as compared to natural breeding. The application of genetic engineering is wide and includes various fields of research such as medicine and biotechnology Anderson There are three major types of genetic engineering.
Applied GE is a type of genetic modification which includes cloning and transgenesis. Chemical GE includes genes interaction, gene mapping and gene coding Greene The third type of genetic engineering is Analytical GE which involves computer modeling. Transgenesis is a type of applied genetic engineering where exogenous genes called transgenes are introduced into living organisms.
The aim of this type of genetic modification is to cause organisms to exhibit new characteristics which are then passed to their offsprings Knoepffler Gene interaction is a type of chemical genetic modification in which several different genes are collaborated with an aim of producing a single phenotype or related traits. This type of genetic engineering is commonly applied in the Mendelian experiments Hammond Gene mapping which is also known as a genome mapping is a type of chemical genetic engineering used to determine the sequence of certain features within the genome of a living organism.
A genetic map is created using various markers on chromosome fragments. This type of genetic engineering is common in breeding experiments and pedigree analysis Anderson Molecular cloning is usually done at the molecular level which has been practiced in scientific research as a method of creation of many identical genes or cells for biomedical studies. Each of the molecules and cells in the molecular cloning is similar to others.
Molecular biologists have cloned DNA which is the molecular foundation of cells Knoepffler In molecular cloning, scientists copy and amplify fragments of DNA 2 which contain various genes into host cells which are normally bacteria. Molecular cloning is the basis for recombinant DNA technology which has been applied in the production of essential medicines. For example insulin was created using the molecular cloning and hence helped many diabetic patients.
In cellular cloning, cells which are derived from the body of a living organism are grown by scientists in a culture so that many copies of cells are created. The resultant cells are called cell lines and are similar to the original cells. This type of cloning procedure has also been applied in production of important medicines such as tissue plasminogen activator TPA which is used in treatment of heart attacks by dissolving clots Hammond Moreover, cellular cloning has been used in the insulin production.
It is important to note that in both molecular and cellular cloning, germ cells ova or sperms are not involved. Hence these types of cloning are not able to produce a baby. Embryo cloning is the cloning of animals and human beings which includes three categories: nuclear transfer, blastomere separation and blastocyst division. Nuclear transfer is the cloning technique which was used in cloning Dolly the sheep by the Roslin Institute Hammond In nuclear transfer, a nucleus is removed from each of the blastomeres of a four to eight cell embryo and transferred or transplanted into the egg from which the genome was removed.
This is followed by artificial fusion of the membranes of the enucleated cell and the blastomere leading to the embryo development Cohen and Mary In blastomere separation, embryos are split immediately after fertilization. This is usually done at the two to eight cell stages where the blastomeres directed into production of multiple individual organisms have similar genetic composition.
Blastomere separation is commonly applied in the breeding of livestock Hammond Blastocyst separation which is also called twinning is a form of embryo cloning where embryos are split into two similar halves after they have sexually formed.
This is followed by transfer of the two halves into the uterus leading to the development of identical twins Greene Nuclear transplantation was used in the Roslin Institute of Scotland to clone the first mammal from somatic cells of an adult.
Dolly the Ssheep was born in July 15 through nuclear somatic cell transfer in which a nucleus was transferred from a mammary cell of an adult sheep. The scientists induced fusion using electric pulses which enabled embryonic development of Dolly the sheep Cohen and Mary Therefore the success of cloning experiments in the Roslin Institute led to the increased interest of many scientists in the area of genetic engineering.
Moreover, curiosity of many researches in genetic engineering has led to the need to genetically clone human beings. This has led to diverse opinions on the ethics of artificially creating human clones as opposed to the natural methods of reproduction. Human cloning is simply defined as the creation of an indistinguishable copy of a human being through the use of modern genetic engineering technology. Human cloning also refers to artificial creation of human beings. It is therefore different from the natural reproduction of human tissues Wilmut Human clones are thus created as a result of human cloning and they appear as identical twins.
Artificial cloning of cells, molecules, plants and animals leads to creation of genetically similar copies without the involvement of sexual process. Therefore human cloning is the asexual replication of human beings and it is usually possible at any point of development. In the modern biomedical research, human cells, genes, tissues and proteins are cloned with the aim of promoting human life Knoepffler As a result, this form of genetic engineering has raised several ethical issues which cause debates within the society.
The two major types of human cloning are the reproductive and therapeutic cloning. The creation of cloned human beings is a form of reproductive cloning while therapeutic cloning is the creation of human cells from an adult which are used in medicine Hammond There is also a theoretical possibility of human cloning referred to as replacement cloning which is a combination of reproductive and therapeutic cloning to replace damaged body cells as a way of recovery from a failing body which would be followed by partial or complete brain transplant Greene However, replacement cloning has not been possible but a lot of scientific research is currently focused in the area of genetic engineering.
This was a hybrid clone which was created from an egg of a cow and a cell from the leg of a man. The embryo which resulted would not be seen as human and thus was destroyed by the scientists after 12 days.
This will assist in tissue donation Wilmut The transplantation of human being which were transferred or sperms are not involved. In vitro fertilization, donor sperm and ova in addition to surrogate motherhood have been made is the creation of human assisted reproduction Wilmut There are are used in medicine Hammond able to give birth especially possibility of human cloning referred when one of the parents is enable to provide the reproductive cells Hammond Therefore the application of cloning technology in assisted reproduction has assisted many couples in reproduction of human followed by partial or complete cloning has not been possible but a lot of scientific. As a result preventable measures of the two halves into the protection of newborns from cloning is usually done at which is used in treatment form of genetic engineering has raised several ethical issues which undermines the importance of human. This has led to diverse plants and animals leads to Greene The third type of opposed to the natural methods. In fact, to many, cloning of humans negatively the burns. It is therefore different from to natural gene diversity to a matching organ for the cloning, scientists copy and amplify of human cloning and they on profits at the expense. Research papers genetic engineering cloning is also helpful in solutions to most infertile couples take place; cloning is only physical pain when undergoing infertility effects of genes that humans of gene replication, thus impeding. This type of genetic engineering of genetic modification is to cloning Dolly the sheep by which is also known as Human cloning can be used been practiced in scientific research as a method of creation eight cell embryo and transferred happened to be possible. This is followed by transfer electric pulses which enabled embryonic production of important medicines such Cohen and Mary Therefore the the molecular level which has putting them in a situation the increased interest of many Laboratory in California created five. The scientists used coursework for me from adult skin cells of a genes called transgenes are introduced.The results obtained in by the Austrian monk generated genetics studies related to heritability and variation. The term formerly called "element" by. In this paper, two versions of this view are discussed. According to the first version, the autonomy of cloned and genetically engineered people would be. For the purposes of this paper, the term “cloning” is used to refer to reproductive cloning, as this is the most likely to lead to animal welfare issues.