ARGUMENTS FOR:
We believe that Somatic Gene Therapy is something that should be tested more and then be extensively used. Although in the past there have been deaths, those are outweighed by the outstanding results shown in other patients.
However, we believe that we should still test and study this form of therapy so that in the future it is even more successful.
We feel that once the techniques involved in Somatic Gene Therapy are refined to the point that the benefits outweigh the potential problems, there is no reason to treat this procedure any differently than other medical procedures.
We would even support more widespread use of somatic cell gene therapy after the techniques had been perfected in more serious disorders.
Many view this therapy as 'playing God' and we find that this is somewhat true, however, we already perform organ transplants which are basically, morally, the same thing.
Some of the people affected by these genetic diseases can stop suffering if we use this method to 'correct' the affected genes, and thus, our future generations will have more chance of living a life disease free with this therapy.
The strongest argument for gene therapy is that it may be the only method to treat the gravely ill or prevent unavoidable illness.
If an individual had the potential for disease, somatic gene therapy may be used to correct the disease causing genetic sequence. For some, gene therapy may be the only hope.
It is reasoned by those in favour that somatic cell gene therapy, can be at least as safe and more effective than current medical procedures. Those involved in medicine are bound by oath to treat patients to the best of their ability, thereby, withholding gene therapy would be to withhold a dramatic way to treat patients.
Another argument for Somatic Gene Therapy is that unlike many conventional medical practices, gene therapy addresses the cause of the disorder rather than the symptoms.
Gene therapy can provide a lifetime unencumbered by chemotherapy, radiation, or other conventional medical solutions.
Gene therapy is often viewed as morally unobjectionable. It offers the potential to cure some diseases or disorders in those who have the problem and to prevent diseases in those whose genes predisposed them to those problems and if done on reproductive cells, gene therapy could keep children from carrying such genes (for unfavorable genetic diseases and disorders) that the children got from their parents.
The strongest argument for gene therapy is that it may be the only method to treat the gravely ill or prevent unavoidable illness.
We believe that Somatic Gene Therapy is something that should be tested more and then be extensively used. Although in the past there have been deaths, those are outweighed by the outstanding results shown in other patients.
However, we believe that we should still test and study this form of therapy so that in the future it is even more successful.
We feel that once the techniques involved in Somatic Gene Therapy are refined to the point that the benefits outweigh the potential problems, there is no reason to treat this procedure any differently than other medical procedures.
We would even support more widespread use of somatic cell gene therapy after the techniques had been perfected in more serious disorders.
Many view this therapy as 'playing God' and we find that this is somewhat true, however, we already perform organ transplants which are basically, morally, the same thing.
Some of the people affected by these genetic diseases can stop suffering if we use this method to 'correct' the affected genes, and thus, our future generations will have more chance of living a life disease free with this therapy.
The strongest argument for gene therapy is that it may be the only method to treat the gravely ill or prevent unavoidable illness.
If an individual had the potential for disease, somatic gene therapy may be used to correct the disease causing genetic sequence. For some, gene therapy may be the only hope.
It is reasoned by those in favour that somatic cell gene therapy, can be at least as safe and more effective than current medical procedures. Those involved in medicine are bound by oath to treat patients to the best of their ability, thereby, withholding gene therapy would be to withhold a dramatic way to treat patients.
Another argument for Somatic Gene Therapy is that unlike many conventional medical practices, gene therapy addresses the cause of the disorder rather than the symptoms.
Gene therapy can provide a lifetime unencumbered by chemotherapy, radiation, or other conventional medical solutions.
Gene therapy is often viewed as morally unobjectionable. It offers the potential to cure some diseases or disorders in those who have the problem and to prevent diseases in those whose genes predisposed them to those problems and if done on reproductive cells, gene therapy could keep children from carrying such genes (for unfavorable genetic diseases and disorders) that the children got from their parents.
The strongest argument for gene therapy is that it may be the only method to treat the gravely ill or prevent unavoidable illness.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST:
Treating defective genes puts you on a slippery slope - soon you will be 'curing' baldness, obesity, poor eyesight etc - actually enhancing the population.
The "slippery slope" is referring to the development of gene therapy for a valid medical reason, but used for purposes not initially intended.
At the first Gene Therapy Policy Conference sponsored by the Recombinant DNA Advisory committee (RAC) of the National Institutes of Health ( NIH), scientists predicted that within 2 years, a researcher will propose a gene-therapy experiment that, although initially aimed at curing disease, could eventually be used to enhance a trait in healthy people. One such example is hair loss as a result of chemotherapy.
The creation of a superhuman is also the fear motivating those who believe science is "playing God". The reasoning behind this belief is that we are to play the hand we are dealt, and science is trying to alter the hand.
Those opposed to Somatic Gene Therapy fear it involves too much uncertainty, risk, and the long-term effects are unknown. The ability of alterations made through Somatic Gene Therapy to persist in the population is a grave concern held by many.
It is too risky as not enough is known about it. The danger objection points out that a few recent attempts at gene therapy in clinical trials have made headlines because of the tragic deaths of some of the people participating in the trials. It is not fully known to what extent this was due to the gene therapy itself, as opposed to pre-existing conditions or improper research techniques.
Treating defective genes puts you on a slippery slope - soon you will be 'curing' baldness, obesity, poor eyesight etc - actually enhancing the population.
Treating defective genes puts you on a slippery slope - soon you will be 'curing' baldness, obesity, poor eyesight etc - actually enhancing the population.
The "slippery slope" is referring to the development of gene therapy for a valid medical reason, but used for purposes not initially intended.
At the first Gene Therapy Policy Conference sponsored by the Recombinant DNA Advisory committee (RAC) of the National Institutes of Health ( NIH), scientists predicted that within 2 years, a researcher will propose a gene-therapy experiment that, although initially aimed at curing disease, could eventually be used to enhance a trait in healthy people. One such example is hair loss as a result of chemotherapy.
The creation of a superhuman is also the fear motivating those who believe science is "playing God". The reasoning behind this belief is that we are to play the hand we are dealt, and science is trying to alter the hand.
Those opposed to Somatic Gene Therapy fear it involves too much uncertainty, risk, and the long-term effects are unknown. The ability of alterations made through Somatic Gene Therapy to persist in the population is a grave concern held by many.
It is too risky as not enough is known about it. The danger objection points out that a few recent attempts at gene therapy in clinical trials have made headlines because of the tragic deaths of some of the people participating in the trials. It is not fully known to what extent this was due to the gene therapy itself, as opposed to pre-existing conditions or improper research techniques.
Treating defective genes puts you on a slippery slope - soon you will be 'curing' baldness, obesity, poor eyesight etc - actually enhancing the population.