DWYP 2 Round 1 RDK vs. Stroupes: Genetic Engineering; For or Against

[RDK]

When the subject of genetic engineering comes up, especially in regards to enhancement (as opposed to prevention), cloning, and stem cell research, a lot of people nowadays tend to be turned off by the proposed dangers of tampering with genetics.

While genetics in its current state is not a terribly advanced science, it's an impossibly large field, and a quickly growing one. Humanity has only to tap the powers of genetics, and in reward can reap the benefits, which are applicable to almost any field imaginable.

Let's take a look at some of the ups to genetic engineering.

Prevention and Enhancement

In the field of genetics, scientists are able to accomplish spectacular advancements to further the health and evolution of mankind. Cures for diseases can be found. Measures can be taken to make sure diseases don't even occur in the first place. Genetics can even be used to enhance the human form, and how we develop--taking the evolution of our species into our own hands.

Cloning

There are many reasons why we clone. Not only is it useful medically, in cases where stem cells are cultured for research purposes, or animals are "pharmed" in order to produce disease-fighting proteins or other medically important products, but cloning can be used for personal and (to an extent) commercial use. Have a deceased pet? You can bring a carbon copy of that pet back via DNA. Cloning can even be used to save endangered or extinct species.

These are only a few examples of the benefits of genetic engineering. DNA manipulation and gene splicing can be infinitely valuable to the human race as a tool, and it should not be shrugged off and barred away solely on the grounds of religious superstition or wayward bioethics. Genetic engineering is the key to unlocking our past and opening our future.

 

[Stroupes]

To begin my arguement, I'll say that while there are many benefits to genetic modification, it comes with many dangers.
I will agree that we shouldn't belittle the positive effects of G.E. based on religious concerns. Rather, it should be argued against with facts of why it is hazardous.
Some examples of harmful genetic engineering:

-Imprecise Technology: Movement of genes from one organism to another. A gene can be cut from the DNA of an organism, but the insertion into the DNA of the target organism is basically random. As a consequence, there is a risk that it may disrupt the functioning of other genes essential to the life of that organism.

-Effects on natural food supply: Wind, insects, humans, birds, and other animals all play into cross-pollinating. If these sources were to carry genetically-altered seeds, it is possible to contaminate other plants or crops if that seed(s) were to be infected.

-Long term Testing: How are we to know that we can rely on genetic engingeering for a long period of time? Genetic engineering uses material from organisms that have never been part of the human food supply to change the fundamental nature of the food we eat. Without long-term testing no one knows if these foods are safe.

-Toxins: Genetic engineering can cause unexpected mutations in an organism, which can create new and higher levels of toxins in foods.

-Gene Pollution: Once genetically engineered organisms, bacteria and viruses are released into the environment it is impossible to contain or recall them. Unlike chemical or nuclear contamination, negative effects are irreversible.

Genetic engineering is just something that is involved with risks. These risks are often greater than the cures they provide.
There is no consensus among scientists on the safety or on the risks associated with genetic engineering in agriculture. The international community is deeply divided on the issue. The claim to safety is a marketing slogan. It has no scientific basis.

 

[RDK]

-Imprecise Technology: Movement of genes from one organism to another. A gene can be cut from the DNA of an organism, but the insertion into the DNA of the target organism is basically random. As a consequence, there is a risk that it may disrupt the functioning of other genes essential to the life of that organism.

This is the wonderful thing about genetic engineering (and also a tie-in to cloning). We can basically make as many test subjects as are needed, so things like the above concern don't become much of a concern any more.

In the case of human DNA, I can see where this might turn into an ethical issue. But we don't really know enough and haven't really experimented enough with human genetics to be gene splicing with people. Right now it's mostly confined to animals and plants.

-Effects on natural food supply: Wind, insects, humans, birds, and other animals all play into cross-pollinating. If these sources were to carry genetically-altered seeds, it is possible to contaminate other plants or crops if that seed(s) were to be infected.

Contaminate how? Genetically altered animals, plants, etc. aren't any more susceptible to contamination than regular animals and plants. I'm not sure I understand the point you're making.

-Long term Testing: How are we to know that we can rely on genetic engingeering for a long period of time? Genetic engineering uses material from organisms that have never been part of the human food supply to change the fundamental nature of the food we eat. Without long-term testing no one knows if these foods are safe.

You're question basically answers itself. We won't be necessarily dependent on genetic engineering until long-term testing has been validated. In our world today, we don't release products before they've been tested and taken for a spin by professionals. The same thing applies to genetics.

This kind of applied science won't actually be applied into the commercial market or everyday use until they've been proven to be safely successful in most cases, and that there's not a great risk to those taking advantage of its uses.

-Toxins: Genetic engineering can cause unexpected mutations in an organism, which can create new and higher levels of toxins in foods.

-Gene Pollution: Once genetically engineered organisms, bacteria and viruses are released into the environment it is impossible to contain or recall them. Unlike chemical or nuclear contamination, negative effects are irreversible.

This is why testing is so important in applied science. These concerns will most likely be addressed before something like an outbreak in toxicity can occur.

 

[Stroupes]

In the case of human DNA, I can see where this might turn into an ethical issue. But we don't really know enough and haven't really experimented enough with human genetics to be gene splicing with people. Right now it's mostly confined to animals and plants.

So it's okay to put plants and animals in danger?

Contaminate how? Genetically altered animals, plants, etc. aren't any more susceptible to contamination than regular animals and plants. I'm not sure I understand the point you're making.

My point here was that genetically altered seeds that may have failed and have some sort of negative effect about them, have a chance to be spread to other plants and effect them as well.

This is why testing is so important in applied science. These concerns will most likely be addressed before something like an outbreak in toxicity can occur.

We shouldn't risk "most likely" when considering the lives of humans, plants, animals, and our ecosystem.
The risk herein is very great, and shouldn't be risked for simple experimentation.
Is the harmful experimentation really worth the negative effect?

 

[RDK]

So it's okay to put plants and animals in danger?

I think it depends on what animals are in question. Obviously plants have no moral rights. When it comes to human testing, or other higher animals, ethical problems will obviously arise.

As far as "danger" goes...I think saying that is a little too much. We "endanger" animals through testing every day. Without animal testing, we wouldn't have any of the pharmaceutical drugs we have today, much less any other kind of medicine.

However, animal testing for anything other than medical / scientific reasons is just plain wrong. Unethical treatment of animals during testing is not something that should be allowed, ever.

My point here was that genetically altered seeds that may have failed and have some sort of negative effect about them, have a chance to be spread to other plants and effect them as well.

At this point, hypothetical problems like these have no basis in fact, and can't really be dealt with at present due to their hypothetical nature.

We shouldn't risk "most likely" when considering the lives of humans, plants, animals, and our ecosystem.
The risk herein is very great, and shouldn't be risked for simple experimentation.
Is the harmful experimentation really worth the negative effect?

But the whole point was that these experiments are done in a controlled environment. Naturally, everything would be accounted for as far as negative effects go. It takes years and years for something like what we're talking about to get released to the public for everyday use. These products would go through lengthy developmental periods before being approved.

 

[Deleted member]

Hmm.

Overview:

I'll be the first to admit that this debate was a little disappointing. Some posts were only a few lines long, while some were just abbreviated due to it being in mostly point form. Needless to say, there was a lot of potential here. Maybe it's just me, but I would have liked to see more elaboration from the both of you. See me after class

RDK:

DNA manipulation and gene splicing can be infinitely valuable to the human race as a tool, and it should not be shrugged off and barred away solely on the grounds of religious superstition or wayward bioethics.

This is a great thesis - very well put. Your opponent also seemed to think so. To be honest, it was lines like these that saved this debate from becoming stale. Your flow, while relatively succinct, was good. However, if you are to continue on in further rounds, you will have to put more effort in, as it reflects in the scoring. In the end, you had sound logic and valid arguments, just not a whole lot of them, or maybe not that much to them.

My verdict: B+


Stroupes: While I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, many of your counter-points to RDK could be evaluated simply as slippery slopes. How do we know the repercussions of genetic engineering? I don't know. But it doesn't seem like you knew either.
While contradictory to what I said in Alt vs GhostAnime, I think your argument could have been really boosted with some sort of evidence that shows that genetic engineering has the potential to backfire horribly.

The risk herein is very great, and shouldn't be risked for simple experimentation.

Forgive me, but you didn't exactly prove this risk, which made things a little cyclical. Proving that, in my opinion, was probably pretty critical to your stance. Admittedly, it wasn't an easy one, but you showed a solid effort. Other than that, you totally had the potential to win this thing.

My verdict: B-

 

[AltF4]

RDK:

I would have liked to see some sources for this debate. Normally I'm not a big stickler for sources as long as you present your arguments coherently enough, but this is a fairly high-tech issue. Aside from that, you made some good points that were never countered, and managed to defend well counter arguments.

A-



Stroupes

Well, first off, you never responded to RDK's first post. He was the first poster, and got to make the first points. By not responding to them, you essentially conceded those points. For you, sources were certainly necessary. Without any kind of scientific backup, these "fears" of genetically mutated plants taking over are simply irrational. I also wished that this debate could have been more active.

C+

 

[RDK]

Sorry about the inactivity. It seems we were both busy, and I promise I'll be more active.