The Pointless Artificial Creation Case Study

1250 Words null Page
The “Pointless” Artificial Creation
The matter of cloning reached a peak when CEO of BioArts International, Lou Hawthorne, announced to his company that they were no longer offering dog-cloning services by giving demand of cloning for a an uninterested market and unethical competition between international markets as one of the reasons for the stoppage. A similar situation of total disregard to organism creation through laboratorial procedures was observed in Ehrlich’s article talking about the case against de-extinction (a branch similar to cloning and In-vitro fertilisation), wherein he clearly specifies “it’s a fascinating but dumb idea” and talks about if extinct species were to be revived, the endangered ones would definitely be affected. Stewart Brand, the author for de-extinction, might have been right when stating that the restoration of extinct species would allow the future generations to gain knowledge about their ancestors and give human’s a possibility for “conservation” of lost-species, but it all boils down to whether the money, which Brand did not evaluate, would be enough to create this cause. The CEO and Ehrlich were correct since organism development through research and lab work, would eventually lead to misallocation of resources, commitment to unethical procedures and high possibility of other dangers.
…show more content…
In Victoria Woollaston’s article, she talks about critics going against the involvement of genetic research due to the “neglect of safety and ethics” as it “could lead to the creation of ‘perfect’ babies”. The critics go on to state that genetically engineered eggs won’t “guarantee” a child’s health to be perfected. These aspects about genetic technology recreating organisms need to be considered if Steward Brand thinks that “It’s a goal worth pursuing”, when in actuality, it is bound to create more risks than

Related Documents