How are the changes in DNA giving us expected and unexpected results?
Every action has an equal or opposite reaction. Expected or unexpected, positive or negative, messing around with one's DNA will always be viewed differently by society. Changing DNA will sure unbalance an aspect in society. It might be the answer for saving lives or curing our world's deadliest diseases, but as it progresses more and more it starts harming our world. It's starting to get rid of imperfections and changing nature's ways, without thinking of the consequences. Genetic changes won't always turn out as expected and in my opinion they haven't been tested enough to become an everyday activity.
How is science influencing the way society looks?
Changing looks by designing babies makes society unnaturally perfect. The world needs differences and imperfections because that's what makes us beautiful. A parent has no right to decide whether their child will be a blond or a brunette, blue eyed or green eyed- that's all up to faith. A child is a miracle so by changing it you wouldn't let it develop to it's full potential, you wouldn't give him a chance. The looks of a baby shouldn't influence the amount of love it receives. However designing infants has both a positive and negative side. The good things would be preventing him from having a disease or making him/ her pretty because that is pretty much all that matters those days. The bad part would be getting rid of a rare gene such as red hair or purple eyes. Faith should be the one to decide looks not a parent who their future child might hate because they would have much rather had brown hair, not blond as their mother "ordered." Making a society beautiful by changing their DNA is cheating and making it fake. Some might say that's great, while other might disagree.
Do you believe that it is a right of the science and technology industry to engineer and manipulate genes? If not, is there ever a good time to do this?
They should only have the right if the people who's genes are manipulated agree, no matter the case. If they genetically modify food they must label it so the consumer would be aware. Scientist shouldn't be allowed to change genes without mentioning, it's the people's decision whether they approve or disagree. Also they must mention what change they made. If farmers add fish genes to tomatoes, a vegetarian buying those tomatoes wouldn't be happy. The only time when scientists should be allowed to manipulate genes is when a situation (pandemic, disease, famine, etc) is out of control and the only way to find a cure/ solve it is modify DNA without caring what the people's decision would be.
How is Human Ingenuity a positive and/or negative thing in the area of genetics?
It's outstanding, as long as they use it for improvement in our daily life- for curing diseases and solving major problems our Earth faces such as starvation. However there is always a negative part and that is the consequences. What's will happen if people eat genetically modified food- so far nothing but no one has clear proof of that. Maybe designer babies live a shorter life. There's always a reaction to modifying DNA. It is something fairly recent, that can't yet become a habit, and we aren't sure of the effects it has on us and our environment, although at the moment they seem positive. Some may think that it is totally safe and it has no side effects, and in the future we might use it daily but other people still aren't convinced.
