Jihee Kang
Vicki Pallo
4/1/15
UNIV 112
Annotated Bibliography: Genetic Engineering
The research that I have gathered has provided varying perspectives
towards the issue of genetic engineering. While all the sources address the moral
of the issue, each source provides different kinds of ethic that the use of genetic
engineering is striking. They all come to a consensus of the benefits of the use
but also the obstructions that the use will bring to the world in the future. I think
this topic is very controversial but also essential to research about how fast the
world is evolving through technology. The world, we live in today, has advanced
exceedingly and to talk about the rapidity of technology is crucial in figuring out
the possible picture of the future.
Each source is linked by the same topic but approaches in a slight
different way. For an example, in the journal written by R E Ashcroft, Ashcroft
brings up the ethical and political issues of the use of genetic engineering by two
scholars, Fukuyama and stock while the news article written by Ariana Eunjung
Cha and Sandhya Somashekhar is opinionated by the public. The news article
talks about how technology, especially the use of genetic engineering, raises
concern to those people who are against “modifying and designing” babies. Both
sources are effectual in contributing the component of ethics and morals by
different audience which provide diversity. Because these two sources are similar
in their approach, they would be effective when writing about the ethics of the
issue.
The other two sources show different interests in how they utillize the
exercise of genetic engineering. A book written by John C Avise presents the use
of therapeutic cloning, another word for genetic engineering, to target the
diminution of growing diseases like cancer, AIDS, and Alzheimer’s disease. In
contrast, a book written by Erik Seedhouse discusses the potential way of
improvising the athlete’s strength by cloning. Seedhouse gears the use of genetic
engineering towards more designing rather preventing diseases. Both sources
are effectual in correlation because they provide two distinctive method of the
use of genetic engineering that would still be used upon people. Avise
approaches the use of genetic engineering in a good way that would prevent
people from the exposure of the diseases. On the other hand, Seedhouse
exemplifies the use of cloning to actually build and design people, like athletes.
Because these two sources are contrasting in their use of genetic engineering,
they would be helpful in my research paper.
In conclusion, I decided to utilize all my sources because I think they are
all crucial in writing about the genetic engineering. Each source touches the base
that the others don’t and they are all imperative and distinctive in many other
ways. All the sources however, do come to an agreement or to a point that the
use of genetic engineering will be pursued in the medical field sooner or later or
simply in another word, human cloning will be available.
Ashcraft, R E. “American Biofutures: Ideology and Utopia in the
Fukuyama/Stock debate.” Medical Ethics 29 (2003): 59-62 pg. Web. 1
Apr. 2015
In this journal, Ashcraft talks about the two distinctive voices of Fukuyama
and Stock about the view of new biomedical technologies radically to transform
human existence. Fukuyama views the new biomedical technologies as threats
because they are a challenge to the fundamental idea of human rights and a
challenge to political economic stability with potential for promoting violent
conflict. Whilst stock stands on the positive side of the use and to promote the
use in free market and instead it is up to people whether they chose to take risks
and improve on their natural endowments. Fukuyama and Stock recognize the
great deal of technology and that it will change human history and humanity
itself, that it cannot be resisted. They end their thoughts by saying it is the power
of people, in another word, we are shaping the future. “The basis of technological
determinism is not in the technology, but in human nature.” It is a useful source
that I can definitely collaborate with my research paper. This source is different
from other sources because it provides contradictory views and opinions towards
the idea and I think it will really help me in developing the thesis as I research
more. The information is reliable since I found it in the VCU library and the
source is objective, providing both sides. The goal for this source is to show the
two different perspective of genetic engineering that these two professors have
come up with. This source really opened up my eyes and ears how the use of
genetic engineering is viewed upon people and how it affects them as a whole.
Avise, Henry. “Genetic Tinkering with Humans.” The Hope, Hype & Reality
of Genetic Engineering: Remarkable Stories From Agriculture,
Industry, Medicine, and the Environment. Oxford University, 2004.
152. pag. Web.b.ebscohost.com. Web. 1 Apr. 2015.
In this book, Avise talks about the benefit of the use of therapeutic cloning,
in which you remove the nucleus and transfer by injection into an unfertilized egg
from which the nucleus ahs been removed. By doing so, it can be served as
medicine for saving human lives and improving their health. However, this also
brings about the issue of human rights and the ethical responsibility. By “cloning”,
we are defying our human rights and generating new cells. This is another useful
source I can work with my research paper because it provides thorough
procedures of how these experiments are worked inside our bodies. This source
is biased, where the author stands on the supportive side however, the author
does provide enough information that also talks about its negative view. I can use
this source to really inform the readers how it is done and how it can really affect
our medicinal field.
Cha, Ariana Eunjung and Sandhya Somashekhar. “FDA panel debates
technique that would create embryos with three genetic parents.”
Washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post, 25 Feb. 2014. Web. 1
Apr. 2015
This newspaper article talks about the debate that every people are in
about the use of genetic engineering today. There have been multiple meetings
regarding whether government should allow the exercise or not. Scientists argue
that the use of technology in improving health is beneficial but it is also highly
sensitive, touching ethical and political nerves. It is a useful source because it
relates to our world, to the government, to people in today and something that we
can participate and contribute to. This source is different from the other sources
because it is an article from newspaper which means an opinions from the
publicity and how the use of genetic engineering is conveyed to the public
instead to scholars or scientists. The source is objective and I can use this
source to extravagate how public view the idea of the matter.
Seedhouse, Erik. “Ethics.” Engineering Our Future Evolution. SpringerVerlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2014. 45 pag. Link.springer.com. Web. 1
Apr. 2015
This book talks about the negativity of cloning especially for athletes.
Seedhouse sees athletes as the first group of people to approve the use of
cloning in their bodies. He believes that sport will enter a high-tech arms race
between cheaters and testers which redefines what it means to be an athlete
because athletes are made not born. He also points out the potential possibility
of cancer led by DNA fragment which causes a change in the genome. He
concludes his idea by saying the world of sports will be faced with the
phenomenon of gene selecting to improve athletes performance. This is a useful
source because it talks about the bad results of the use unlike all the other
sources which moderately support the use. This particular source will be very
effective in my research paper because it will help me find the opposing views
compared to the other sources.