Genetics Essay Research Paper Today people go

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

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.