Monday, October 31, 2011

Post 10


Gene-manipulation, yes or no?

                Some arguments in favor of genetic manipulation would be to eliminate genetic diseases, repair mutations within the genome, modifying food so that insects will not eat it or so that it will grow faster or larger.  Some arguments against genetic manipulation would be the creation of a “super-race” of humans and an end to genetic diversity.  Once the tinkering starts, where does it stop?

                I personally believe that gene-manipulation in humans is wrong unless it is to cure an otherwise incurable disease.   In the movie Gattaca humanity started using the “best” genetic outcomes for children, which lead to discrimination against people who are not the “best” genetic outcome for a single pairing, basically sentencing them to menial tasks without hope of bettering themselves.

http://www.helium.com/items/166289-weighing-the-pros-and-cons-of-gene-therapy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca
http://www.whatisgenetherapy.net/gene-therapy-pros-and-cons.html
http://www.ashevillelist.com/history/gene-therapy-pros-cons.htm
Posted by at

20 comments:

  1. Tom LewisNovember 2, 2011 at 11:15 AM

    1. S
    2. M
    3. S
    4. M

    I think that the ethical question is a good one, and the arguements for and against are strong ones. In your defense of one side I think that you could have more scientific information rather than a movie. Is it a good one by the way?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kevin KoselNovember 2, 2011 at 9:22 PM

    1. Medium
    2. Medium
    3. Strong
    4. Medium

    5. I feel like you could have explained gene-manipulation a little better and could have more topics on both sides of the argument. For example, the whole religious debate or cost are big ones. Also, I agree with the comment above that you could have defended your position with more information.

    ReplyDelete
  3. landsverkjNovember 3, 2011 at 6:42 AM

    1. Described field of interest and described question posed. Medium
    2. Both sides of argument were presented. Medium
    3. Appropriate references were included. Strong
    4. Defended position is described clearly. Medium

    5. Try to describe the arguments for and against gene manipulation a little more. Provide reasons why people have these beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kang Z. VangNovember 3, 2011 at 4:03 PM

    1. M
    2. M
    3. M
    4. M

    5. Listing or describing the arguments for and against gene manipulation would make this a stronger discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sam WilliamsonNovember 3, 2011 at 10:17 PM

    1.M
    2.M
    3.S
    4.W

    5. Field of interest could have been more explicit. This is a huge issue and there are a ton of arguments on each side, you could very easily have elaborated a lot more on both sides of the argument. Also, you did not take a clear stance on this issue. The last criteria was to take a firm stance on one side, but you admit that you would not be opposed to it under certain circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mitch HaugeNovember 5, 2011 at 4:39 PM

    1.M
    2.M
    3.S
    4.M
    5. Make sure you state your field of interest, so we don't have to try and guess. I think a little more material could have been put into both arguments. And your arguement could have been beefed up also.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousNovember 7, 2011 at 8:42 AM

    1.M
    2. M
    3. S
    4. M
    5. I think that more information could have been provided for both the pros and cons of the argument (such as cost, what it is currently being done, etc). I also think that you could have defended your position better with more information and facts on top of the movie you used.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Whitney PNovember 7, 2011 at 7:50 PM

    1.M
    2.M
    3.S
    4.M
    5. State your field of interest. I would suggest expanding a little more on the pro and con arguments and even your opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  9. UnknownNovember 8, 2011 at 4:19 PM

    1. M
    2. W
    3. M
    4. S

    5. You had four sources which is a lot of information but your post didn't have much description of the arguments. I think the arguments could have been described better. Good work though.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Andrew JeskeNovember 8, 2011 at 7:25 PM

    1.M
    2.M
    3.S
    4.M

    5. you hit the whole subject real quick. More explanation on the arguments and a stronger stance would help.

    ReplyDelete
  11. SteveNovember 8, 2011 at 9:34 PM

    1.W
    2.M
    3.M
    4.M

    5.The sources do not seem very legit. Perhaps include some more detail and better organize your in favor and against arguments. Also, you are missing your field of interest.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Amy YorkNovember 9, 2011 at 7:58 PM

    1.M
    2.M
    3.M
    4.M

    5. Provide more background on the issue before getting straight to your stance on the issue. It lets readers get a feel for the issue before hearing the positions.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Caitlin BruceNovember 10, 2011 at 1:02 PM

    1.W
    2.M
    3.M
    4.M

    Your sources are a bit questionable when they come from wikipedia and you also did not clearly state field of interest, it is there just not clearly defined so that there is not confusion. I think overall good ideas maybe just go deeper into what they are actually saying.

    ReplyDelete
  14. forthetreesNovember 28, 2011 at 5:19 PM

    1. Described field of interest and described question posed: W
    2. Both sides of argument were presented: M
    3. Appropriate references were included: S
    4. Defended position is described clearly: M

    5. One Useful comment: I think that you needed to describe your area of study, and how this related to you. A stronger opinion would be better, than one just based off a movie

    ReplyDelete
  15. AnnDecember 2, 2011 at 7:48 PM

    1. M
    2. M
    3. S
    4. M
    5. Expand more on your position

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kevin OsumDecember 5, 2011 at 4:29 PM

    1.m
    2.w
    3.m
    4.m

    i enjoyed the movie but using facts or stats would have been better.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Danielle ThuemlingDecember 17, 2011 at 11:34 AM

    1. W
    2. W
    3. W
    4. M
    No clear pro and con argument, also I would find more legit references.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Don GischDecember 17, 2011 at 6:31 PM

    1. W
    2. M
    3. S
    4. S

    Overall I think that this topic needs more information for both for and against. From the information presented it isn't clear what your relation to the field of interest is. Bonus points for GATTACA references :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. SchwazyDecember 17, 2011 at 11:00 PM

    1. W
    2. M
    3. S
    4. M
    5. Seems like you were a bit brief on the topic especially with all the sources. A stronger stance on the topic would have been added.

    ReplyDelete
  20. profish87December 19, 2011 at 4:26 AM

    1. M
    2. M
    3. W
    4. M

    While both sides of the argument and you r area of interest are present. They feel as if they were done rather quickly. I also felt as if you needed some more legit references for this topic.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)