| Genetics Essay, Research Paper
Today people go to the super market thinking they are getting
good clean healthy products, but instead half of what they are
buying has undergone genetic therapy. You pick up a beautiful
looking red tomato and you think it has probably been on the
vine the longest, but in fact almost all tomatoes found in super
markets are picked when they are green and then injected with
red dye to make them appear healthy. The milk you buy has come
from a cow that has been altered to produce more milk. The
bigger chicken breasts at the store come from a genetically altered
chicken to make more breast meat for consumers. This is what
society has come to, altering animals and natural vegetation for
consumers. When testing with living creatures where do people
give room for genetic fail and mishap. Genetic engineering of
plants and animals should be left to nature to take its toll instead
of the hands of the irrational scientists.
Genetically engineered agriculture is not beneficial enough
to do good in today?s society. I must agree with John Keehn a
freelance writer in New York who quotes ?No one really knows
what effect splicing in…other genes into a plant would have? (74).
While many of today?s ? super foods? are on the shelves at every
grocer, you have to wonder what detrimental side effects lie in
store for the consumers. The universal consumer must start
worrying that biotechnology could indeed intensify the worlds
food state by continuing to leave genetic resources in the hands of
blind sighted corporations. Today gene splicing in agriculture
allows scientists to mutate crops to behave or show certain
characteristics. For example if a certain species of animal is
facing extinction due to lack of vegetation, then scientists are now
able to alter plants to begin to show those traits to provide the
species with a food supply. Now, where does this leave the
natural selection process. Who are we to save the species when
we have let science into the hands of people who take farming
away from the family farmer and put it into the hands of the
gigantic corporations. Recently scientists have come up with
herbicide tolerant crops. This is supposed to lead farmers away
from using harsh herbicides like atrazine. The draw back is what
happens when the weeds and vegetation begin to build up a
resistance to the herbicide tolerant plants. Just because the new
herbicides are less harmful doesn?t mean they are harmless. New
laboratory tests have shown that the new herbicides cause birth
defects in animals and may pose developmental risks to the future
offspring of those applying the chemical. If all these threats and
dangers are present why do we continue with altering and
modifying the natural vegetation. Those who try to oppose the
idea of biotechnology in agriculture are looked upon as people
who are only stubborn to technological change. As Keehn later
explains ?This is what makes it difficult for anyone -government
officials, research scientists, farmers or consumers- to stop and
consider where biotechnology is taking us and we really want to
go?(81).
Genetically altering animals is cruel and not in good nature
of science. How many times do you hear the phrase in the name
of science. Well it no longer is an excuse. True it would be a
miracle to wipe out diseases with medical science , but not at the
expense of animals. Until recently I was not aware that there are
organizations that actually promote the use of laboratory
animals. It is called American Association For Animal Science.
Although as I began touring the web site I of course found that
one argument was ? in the name of science.? Frequently the radio
and television broadcasts specials about animal activists
protesting, but it never occurred to me their reasoning. Genetic
engineering was supposed to create a super pig in which it would
grow fast, produce high quality meat, and be super big. Although
that didn?t occur and what was left was an excessively hairy,
arthritic, cross eyed pig who had a difficult time standing up. So
is this what science is going to do to people because they couldn?t
work out all the kinks? Scientists are now producing sheep that
grow thirty percent faster than normal ones, injecting
approximately ten thousand pig embryos with growth genes, and
giving cows certain hormones in order to produce more milk. I
believe Andrew Kimbrell best puts it by stating ?Genetic
engineering not only causes great animal suffering but also puts
the genetic integrity of many species of animals at risk? (102). For
example, putting growth hormones in cows to produce more milk
is dangerous. Milk from the cows is likely to contain more
antibiotics, hormones and dispersed pus; yet the FDA allows the
milk to be sold. If the federal government and scientists don?t
stop ignoring animal suffering and the ethics behind it we may all
be in danger.
Although there are good sides to looking at genetic
engineering of animals and plants. According to John Dyson a
writer for Readers Digest ?The green gene technology that crated
a tastier tomato will also benefit the environment and help feed
the ten billion mouths that will be here in half a lifetime.? The
idea of producing more quantities of food to feed people is
definitely a benefit. With new technology crops will be able to
travel longer distances and have longer shelf life without rotting.
Having fruits and vegetables freeze well without going mushy.
This bold new technology will help farmers save thousands of
dollars each year.
Also genetic testing of animals may have some benefits after
all. If genetic engineering were allowed to be executed to
livestock, the animals may benefit by producing healthier
offspring and not carrying disease that could hurt humans if
ingested. Also animals that are resistant to certain disease or
environmental conditions could survive in additional areas
making better use of land and natural resource. Another added
feature is that famine could be diminished and perhaps local
exporting might begin to improve our economy status.
There are a great amount of benefits that can could come
from genetic engineering, but we must decide if we want to risk it.
Should we endanger the lives of animals and perhaps put
ourselves at risk just to attempt to make things more convenient
for us. We must wonder if all the good coming out of this really is
worth the loss that either the animals or us are taking. Saving
the worlds hunger problem doesn?t seem like it would happen just
because we saved a few cows lives. I hope that technology takes
its time in coming around because the public today is easily
persuaded and I hope nothing harsh would come of it.
|